OK - wasn’t precise enough - token types didn’t change but there are newer
tokens introduced.
Yes.
As the syntax has changed do we need version and standards support in the
parsing phase then?
I don’t think so, no. I don’t know what the use-case would be. You’d have to
go back
Great. One more thing...
To get that completed we need to revisit the PD model as not all features of
PDF are reflected in the matching PD model. That could be done when
implementing the profiles.
All the PD classes provide access to the underlying COS model, so there’s no
need to expose
Great. One more thing...
To get that completed we need to revisit the PD model as not all features of
PDF are reflected in the matching PD model. That could be done when
implementing the profiles.
All the PD classes provide access to the underlying COS model, so there’s no
need to
To get that completed we need to revisit the PD model as not all features
of PDF are reflected in the matching PD model. That could be done when
implementing the profiles.
All the PD classes provide access to the underlying COS model, so there’s no
need to expose low-level details in the
Hi,
as I’m currently looking at the parsing part of PDFBox one question came to my
mind which is a more formal support for PDF versions and PDF standards such as
PDF/A, PDF/UA …
As of today PDFBox has no formal support for specific PDF versions in a way
that a specific version can be
Hi Maruan
As of today PDFBox has no formal support for specific PDF versions in a way
that a specific version can be enforced, validated ...
Perhaps that is because there is not much demand for this? Nowadays everyone
has instant access to the latest version of Adobe Reader so checking that
Hi John,
it’s not about PDF versions but PDF versions and standards.
The base syntax has not changed. But the elements described by the base have.
BR
Maruan Sahyoun
Am 10.03.2014 um 09:20 schrieb John Hewson j...@jahewson.com:
Hi Maruan
As of today PDFBox has no formal support for
The base syntax has not changed. But the elements described by the base have.
If the syntax hasn’t changed then there can’t be anything in the parser which
is version-specific.
-- John
On 10 Mar 2014, at 01:43, Maruan Sahyoun sahy...@fileaffairs.de wrote:
Hi John,
it’s not about PDF
I think we are talking about two different things here. The parsing process to
get the tokens, and the parsing process to follow the PDF file layout and to
form and follow the higher level structures such as Xref. Tokens didn’t change.
File layout and higher level structures did like -
If the syntax hasn’t changed then there can’t be anything in the parser
which is version-specific.
I think we are talking about two different things here. The parsing process
to get the tokens and the parsing process to follow the PDF file layout and
to form and follow the higher level
OK - wasn’t precise enough - token types didn’t change but there are newer
tokens introduced.
As the syntax has changed do we need version and standards support in the
parsing phase then? Other way would be to parse what’s in there and do
validation etc. purely on the parsing result (COS
OK - wasn’t precise enough - token types didn’t change but there are newer
tokens introduced.
Yes.
As the syntax has changed do we need version and standards support in the
parsing phase then?
I don’t think so, no. I don’t know what the use-case would be. You’d have to go
back and read
12 matches
Mail list logo
