Re: [XeTeX] pdf/A

nice! Thanks. - Maïeul http://blog.maieul.net http://www.schtroumpfs.maieul.net/ Le 2 mai 2017 à 23:15, Herbert Schulz a écrit : > >> On May 2, 2017, at 3:45 PM, Maïeul wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> should it be possible to add option in xdvi2pdf to

Re: [XeTeX] pdf/A

> On May 2, 2017, at 3:45 PM, Maïeul wrote: > > Hi, > > should it be possible to add option in xdvi2pdf to get pdf/A? It is many time > asked for phd thesis. > > Maïeul > > > > > -- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List

Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum

Dear Joseph, I have a request for a new primitive in XeTeX, not directly related to typesetting by I think useful. To understand why I'm asking, a bit of background would be useful. The XeTeX in the latest TeX Live repository has a new primitive \pdfmdfivesum imported from pdfTeX. However the

Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum

On 10/07/2015 10:37, Akira Kakuto wrote: Dear Joseph, I have a request for a new primitive in XeTeX, not directly related to typesetting by I think useful. To understand why I'm asking, a bit of background would be useful. The XeTeX in the latest TeX Live repository has a new primitive

Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum

Dear Joseph, However the name and the implementation itself, are still volatile. Best regards, Akira Thanks: hope it was not too much effort. \pdfmdfivesum in XeTeX is renamed as \mdfivesum in revision 37831, to be consistent with \strcmp and \shellescape. Best regards, Akira

Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum

Sorry to add yet another a voice to the discussion. I agree with Apostolos Syropoulos that the adding primitives to XeTeX should be limited, but I disagree on other points. On 7/2/15, Apostolos Syropoulos asyropou...@yahoo.com wrote: So someone will step in and implement this primitive but then

Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum

On Thu, 2 Jul 2015, Joseph Wright wrote: Depends what you are using it for. Collisions are possible in MD5 so it's no longer suitable for cryptographic applications. Here, however, we are talking about avoiding the more prosaic issues of people having not-quite matching sources. (We are *not*

Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum

If MD5 is necessary for compatibility with some existing standard, so be it; but it's not secure anymore and it shouldn't be used in any new design where there's a concern about possible deliberate tampering, as opposed to accidental errors. SHA1 is deprecated, too. I think SHA256 is the

Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum

On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Joseph Wright joseph.wri...@morningstar2.co.uk wrote: On 02/07/2015 05:54, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: If MD5 is necessary for compatibility with some existing standard, so be it; but it's not secure anymore and it shouldn't be used in any new design

Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum

On 01/07/2015 19:39, Apostolos Syropoulos wrote: We can happily generate that file using pdfTeX (\pdfmdfivesum primitive) or LuaTeX (using Lua code), but not using XeTeX. That's not a big issue but the need for an MD5 sum gives me an idea which would need support in XeTeX. The (Xe)TeX

Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum

We can happily generate that file using pdfTeX (\pdfmdfivesum primitive) or LuaTeX (using Lua code), but not using XeTeX. That's not a big issue but the need for an MD5 sum gives me an idea which would need support in XeTeX. The (Xe)TeX language has been designed not for system programming

Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum

Apostolos Syropoulos wrote: To the best of my knowledge Perl and Python are available for Windows. People can download and install the languages. I do not think that Microsoft would have any objection to this. So instead of augmenting the language with unnecessary primitives, ask people to

Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum

Hi Joseph, On 01/07/2015, at 23:03, Joseph Wright joseph.wri...@morningstar2.co.uk wrote: Hello all, I have a request for a new primitive in XeTeX, not directly related to typesetting by I think useful. To understand why I'm asking, a bit of background would be useful. The LaTeX team

Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum

language. If you could explain, Apostolos, how *TeX would be able to interact with such an external scripting language in order to ascertain the MD5 checksum for an opened file, then perhaps I could better understand your proposal. Off the top of my head I would propose the use of

Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum

But how can you ensure that the file for which Perl computes the MD5 checksum is the same file that *TeX has open ? Because I am the one that has written the TeX file that contains the Perl code. After all, PerlTeX is similar to luaTeX. Thus if you trust luaTeX, you should trust PerlTeX.

Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum

Am Wed, 1 Jul 2015 21:13:57 + schrieb Apostolos Syropoulos: After all, PerlTeX is similar to luaTeX. With the difference that perltex needs an external perl. Which means that it e.g. can't run it on online editors like sharelatex or overleaf. Also I do find it a bit overkill if packages

Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum

Apostolos Syropoulos wrote: Off the top of my head I would propose the use of PerlTeX: But how can you ensure that the file for which Perl computes the MD5 checksum is the same file that *TeX has open ? Philip Taylor -- Subscriptions,

Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum

Apostolos Syropoulos wrote: [T]here is no reason to make XeTeX more complex than it is. Cf. a recent reply by Margin Schröder on the TeXhax list : 2015-06-27 20:11 GMT+02:00 Walt Burkhard burkh...@cs.ucsd.edu: I am wondering how to use the \hyphenation command when the word contains ä, ö,

Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum

Apostolos Syropoulos wrote: But how can you ensure that the file for which Perl computes the MD5 checksum is the same file that *TeX has open ? Because I am the one that has written the TeX file that contains the Perl code. But how do /you/ know which file *TeX has opened, if the

Re: [XeTeX] \(pdf)mdfivesum

On Thu, 2 Jul 2015, Ross Moore wrote: MD5 sums are also required pieces of data with some of the modern PDF standards, such as PDF/A, PDF/UA, and especially whenever attachments are included. They are part of the bookkeeping data that can be used to ensure that embedded files are indeed what

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

Zdenek Wagner wrote: I believe it can be done but I cannot test it now because my Windows machine does not work. At least I am sure that it is able to produce PDF/X (it is PDF 1.4) as well as PDF/A (it is PDF 1.5). The specifier is a function of the Default settings, Zdeněk, but I have

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

Martin Schröder wrote: PS: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=xetex+set+pdf+versionl=1#seen :-) Which yields, in a non-dismissable popup : Thought that was cool? Try the iPhone App or Grab Some Stickers. App Store PayPal $1/sticker Play it again or Create one yourself. Very useful. Not.

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote: Martin Schröder wrote: PS: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=xetex+set+pdf+versionl=1#seen :-) Which yields, in a non-dismissable popup : well, not nondismissible. I just found I had to click elsewhere outside of the popup

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

2013/1/11 Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk: Martin Schröder wrote: PS: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=xetex+set+pdf+versionl=1#seen :-) http://lmgtfy.com/?q=xetex+set+pdf+versionl=1 Very useful. Not. Very useful. :-) Best Martin --

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

I have cloned dvipdfmx.cfg from D:\TeX\Live\2011\texmf\dvipdfmx to D:\TeX\Live\texmf-local\dvipdfmx I have edited the line that read V 5 to read V 7 in D:\TeX\Live\texmf-local\dvipdfmx and saved the file. I have rebuilt the file name database

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

2013/1/10 Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk: My Adobe Acrobat Professional is dated 2006; My XeTeX is dated 2011. Why does my 2011 XeTeX tell me that the PDF version generated by my 2006 Adobe Acrobat Professional is too recent ? Even in TeX Live 2012 xdvipdfmx as default produces PDF 1.5.

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013, Philip TAYLOR wrote: My Adobe Acrobat Professional is dated 2006; My XeTeX is dated 2011. Why does my 2011 XeTeX tell me that the PDF version generated by my 2006 Adobe Acrobat Professional is too recent ? Because it is? I'm not sure what kind of answer you hope to

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

On 13-01-10 16:23, Philip TAYLOR wrote: My Adobe Acrobat Professional is dated 2006; My XeTeX is dated 2011. Why does my 2011 XeTeX tell me that the PDF version generated by my 2006 Adobe Acrobat Professional is too recent ? ** WARNING ** Version of PDF file (1.6) is newer than version

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

Adam Twardoch (List) wrote: It this case, recent means too high a version. Adobe has kept adding fancy features to the PDF spec since version 1.3 or 1.4, which are not print-related, such as JavaScript, embedded Flash, forms etc. Many non-Adobe PDF interpreters or parses only support the

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

2013/1/10 Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wag...@gmail.com: Even in TeX Live 2012 xdvipdfmx as default produces PDF 1.5. If PDF And how does one tell xetex to produce PDF 1.6? Best Martin -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

2013/1/10 Adam Twardoch (List) list.a...@twardoch.com: versions. I'm not sure which is the highest version of PDF that XeTeX supports, but my guess it'd be 1.3 or 1.4. But that's also a popular practice by some print publishers. Recently I had to submit a print ad to a magazine, and their

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: [PT] Why does my 2011 XeTeX tell me that the PDF version generated by my 2006 Adobe Acrobat Professional is too recent ? Because it is? I'm not sure what kind of answer you hope to receive. Your Acrobat package is producing a version of the file format

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

2013/1/10 Martin Schröder mar...@oneiros.de: 2013/1/10 Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wag...@gmail.com: Even in TeX Live 2012 xdvipdfmx as default produces PDF 1.5. If PDF And how does one tell xetex to produce PDF 1.6? See http://tex.stackexchange.com/a/8822/5763 and

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

2013/1/10 Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk: and it wass therefore a great surprise to discover that it could not handle a version of PDF that was specified six years ago. Please stop wasting electrons: It is perfectly able to do that. Best Martin

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

Martin Schröder wrote: 2013/1/10 Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk: and it wass therefore a great surprise to discover that it could not handle a version of PDF that was specified six years ago. Please stop wasting electrons: It is perfectly able to do that. Really ? So the message **

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

Hello, Philip. On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote: Really ? So the message ** WARNING ** Version of PDF file (1.6) is newer than version limit specification. is not a warning at all, and XeTeX is perfectly happy to handle PDF Version 1.6 ? If so,

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

2013/1/10 Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk: Could the spurious warning that XeTeX cannot handle PDF 1.6 please be removed ?. Yes. See my other mail. :-) Best Martin -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

Excellent, thank you Kevin. It is good that there are so many helpful people on this list. Philip Taylor -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

Are you also a TeXworks user, Kevin ? I ask because I have tried adding the additional incantation (below) as the first of the arguments to XeTeX using the TeXworks configuration editor, upon which it states it can no longer write to the default output file. Philip Taylor Kevin Godby

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote: Are you also a TeXworks user, Kevin ? I ask because I have tried adding the additional incantation (below) as the first of the arguments to XeTeX using the TeXworks configuration editor, upon which it states it can no

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

2013/1/10 Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk: Excellent, thank you Kevin. It is good that there are so many helpful people on this list. http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/2013-January/023983.html See also the first hit on

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

Martin Schröder wrote: http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/2013-January/023983.html which reads (in part) : And how does one tell xetex to produce PDF 1.6? Produce is the opposite of consume. As was clear from my original post, I would like XeTeX to /consume/ PDF 1.6 and not (necessarily)

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013, Philip TAYLOR wrote: Produce is the opposite of consume. As was clear from my original post, I would like XeTeX to /consume/ PDF 1.6 and not (necessarily) produce PDF 1.6. If the former can be Converting PDF 1.6 to a lower version is a very complicated operation and not

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: Converting PDF 1.6 to a lower version is a very complicated operation and not one XeTeX is well suited to do. I don't think attempting to implement that conversion is a good use of XeTeX maintainers' time. I agree, Mathew, and I am not requesting that. If,

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013, Philip TAYLOR wrote: but rather than PDF 1.6 as input is inconsistent with the default output PDF version, then I do think that a clearer diagnostic could be issued. E.g., ** WARNING ** Version of PDF input file (1.6) is newer than requested output version (1.x). I

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

Martin Schröder schrieb: See also the first hit on https://www.google.de/search?q=xetex+**+WARNING+**+Version+of+PDF+file+%281.6%29+is+newer+than+version+limit+specification.ie=utf-8oe=utf-8 Just as a side note: google's search results are strongly biased by your personal previous choices of

Re: [XeTeX] PDF V1.6 too recent

2013/1/10 Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk: Adam Twardoch (List) wrote: It this case, recent means too high a version. Adobe has kept adding fancy features to the PDF spec since version 1.3 or 1.4, which are not print-related, such as JavaScript, embedded Flash, forms etc. Many non-Adobe

Re: [XeTeX] PDF/X-1a preflight \special

In the category of (maybe) "better late than never": On Tue Nov 30 21:51:24 CET 2010, Juan Acevedo wrote: I found in the web a generous sample file by Eric Jeschke containing these lines: --- \special{pdf:docinfo /Title (My Book) % set your title here /Author (Som Wan)%

Re: [XeTeX] PDF encrypttion not supported by latest texlive?

On 17-02-2011 3:05, Michael Joyner wrote: I am trying to encrypt a PDF while retaining the bookmarks and have discovered pdftk eats said bookmarks. :( Strange! I use PDFtk frequently and it never eats my bookmarks. So I discovered the existence of the pdfcrypt but now I get: ! Package

Re: [XeTeX] PDF minor version

Heiko, for debugging purposes I need a lower PDF minor version number for the PDF file generated by XeTeX. Wait, do you just need a lower version number, or a PDF built to a lower version specification? Because the first is a job for GhostScript, not for the output driver. However, if

Re: [XeTeX] PDF minor version

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 07:00:40AM -0700, Michiel Kamermans wrote: Heiko, for debugging purposes I need a lower PDF minor version number for the PDF file generated by XeTeX. Wait, do you just need a lower version number, or a PDF built to a lower version specification? I want to read

Re: [XeTeX] PDF minor version

Am 16.09.2010 um 15:44 schrieb Heiko Oberdiek: * The only way I know is using xetex -no-pdf, followed by xdvipdfmx -V number. xdvipdfmx --help shows: This is more efficient: xetex -output-driver='xdvipdfmx -V number' file The xdvipdfmx binaries in TL '09 and '10 pretest work

Re: [XeTeX] PDF minor version

I thought you could simply edit dvipdfmx.cfg? From the file: %% PDF Version Setting %% %% PDF (minor) version stamp to use in output file. %% This also implies maximal version of PDF file allowed to be included. %% Dvipdfmx does not support 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 since TrueType font embedded %% as

Re: [XeTeX] PDF minor version

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 02:17:34PM -0400, Andy Lin wrote: I thought you could simply edit dvipdfmx.cfg? If I would have known it ;-) I couldn't find any docu about it. Yours sincerely Heiko Oberdiek -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List

Re: [XeTeX] PDF minor version

Am 16.09.2010 um 22:01 schrieb Heiko Oberdiek: I thought you could simply edit dvipdfmx.cfg? If I would have known it ;-) I couldn't find any docu about it. And this route is bug-free? -- Mit friedvollen Grüßen Pete We are usually convinced more easily by reasons we have found

Re: [XeTeX] PDF Media, Trim, and Bleed boxes in XeTeX

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 21/07/10 13:17, � wrote: 2010/7/21 Chris Yocum cyo...@gmail.com: get the information out of the crop package and into the PDF proper using \special{pdf: /TrimBox [...]} but I have rather failed so far and had other things take over my time.

Re: [XeTeX] PDF Media, Trim, and Bleed boxes in XeTeX

On Jul 10, 2010, at 3:38 PM, Chris Yocum wrote: I have a feeling that this is a rather naive/dumb question but I will raise it nonetheles. I have been looking into creating pre-press quality (PDF X-1a at least) PDFs via XeLaTeX. It seems that most things are there: embedded fonts (pdffonts

Re: [XeTeX] PDF Media, Trim, and Bleed boxes in XeTeX

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/07/10 12:10, William Adams wrote: On Jul 10, 2010, at 3:38 PM, Chris Yocum wrote: I have a feeling that this is a rather naive/dumb question but I will raise it nonetheles. I have been looking into creating pre-press quality (PDF X-1a

Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: bidi?

any bugs or something like that, but not important now) and I finally reported this issue. From: Vafa Khalighi v...@users.berlios.de To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms xetex@tug.org Sent: Tue, March 23, 2010 12:07:59 AM Subject: Re: [XeTeX

Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: bidi?

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Rembrandt Wolpert wolp...@uark.edu wrote: This sets the pdfauthor to XeLaTeX. Choose whatever you like: Mickeymouse, Pooh Bear, anything. \usepackage{hyperref} % no colour \hypersetup{ bookmarks=true, plainpages=false,

Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: bidi?

On 17 Mar, 2010, at 17:44, Rembrandt Wolpert wrote: I assume that it would take the maintainer about 10 seconds to apply this very simple step, certainly not longer than it took François Charette to correct the orthography of the name Vafa, and certainly not longer than explaining in

Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: bidi?

are you not interested in your package any more? Are you looking for a new maintainer? No. -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex

Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: bidi?

Vafa Khalighi wrote: are you not interested in your package any more? Are you looking for a new maintainer? No. Now, why are you so uninterested in adding a bug report... Well, I think this leads to nothing. You are doing all this in your spare time. So if you really don't want to do it

Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: bidi?

Andreas Matthias wrote: Now, why are you so uninterested in adding a bug report... Well, I think this leads to nothing. You are doing all this in your spare time. So if you really don't want to do it we will definitely not force you to add a bug report to your own package. Of course,

Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: bidi?

11:46:39 PM Subject: Re: [XeTeX] PDF Creator: bidi? ok. That is fine. I am totally convinced. I can add an option, say creator that writes bidi as the creator of the PDF file and otherwise does nothing. But please note that when bidi writes itself as the creator of the PDF file, it provides