On 06/01/2021 20.21, Dominik Seichter wrote:
Sorry, now I missed this mail while working on your previous mail and patch!
NP.
Could you please check the current state in SVN?
I think the date handling after your previous patch was ok - do you agree?
After the previous mail I thought that D:2012<garbage> gets parsed as
2012... so an error is IMHO better.
I also do not think there are really documents that use something like
D:20120 instead of D:2012 or D:201201 as valid date on purpose...
Can you send a patch only for the PdfDate clean up please?
You mean without adding the error-detection?
Can do it.
If you take the part with the tests out it should already apply cleanly,
as I worked on the patch sent previously (I did not see changes on your
side on PDFDate, but could have missed them).
Thanks,
Dominik
Federico
_______________________________________________
Podofo-users mailing list
Podofo-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/podofo-users
