<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Reinhard Kotucha <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:reinhard.kotucha@gmx.de" target="_blank">reinhard.kotucha@gmx.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=""><div class="h5">On 2015-06-23 at 06:07:13 +0200, luigi scarso wrote:<br>
<br>
> > Hi,<br>
> > at<br>
> ><br>
> > <a href="http://tracker.luatex.org/view.php?id=434" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://tracker.luatex.org/view.php?id=434</a><br>
> ><br>
> > Hans wrote<br>
> ><br>
> > > pdf/a demands a cidset but we will forget about this till we find a<br>
> > > proper example<br>
> > ><br>
> > > there is still some reported problem with some stream objects not<br>
> > > properly being formatted cf. pdf/a but it is not clear what is<br>
> > > going on there<br>
> ><br>
> > This message is now five years old. Any new perceptions?<br>
> ><br>
> > I'm using a TrueType font (CharisSIL) and one of five PDF/A validators<br>
> > complains about a bad CIDSet.<br>
> ><br>
> > I created a small PDF file which only contains the string "abc",<br>
> > extracted the TTF from the PDF file, and disassembled it with TTX.<br>
> > Then I assembled the CIDSet manually according to the instructions<br>
> > given in the PDF/A-1 specification (ISO 19005-1). I've got the same<br>
> > result as LuaTeX, hence it's unclear to me what's going wrong.<br>
> ><br>
> > The PDFtron<br>
> ><br>
> > <a href="https://www.pdftron.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.pdftron.com/</a><br>
> ><br>
> > validator sais<br>
> ><br>
> > <Error Code="e_PDFA356" Message="CIDSet in subset font is incomplete"<br>
> > Refs="95, 101"/><br>
> ><br>
> > I tend to believe that the validator is wrong. On the other hand<br>
> > PDFtron offers software which creates PDF/A files and I can't imagine<br>
> > that their validator complains about their own products.<br>
> ><br>
> > Did anybody investigate? The nasty thing is that PDF/A is for long<br>
> > term preservation and any file we create today has to comply with the<br>
> > standard unconditionally. And for us TeX users, the fact that there<br>
> > are zillions of invalid PDF/A files around just because old versions<br>
> > of the Acrobat preflight tool ignored most errors, is not an excuse.<br>
> > We should do better.<br>
> ><br>
> > >From the results of my own investigations I deduce that LuaTeX<br>
> > provides a standard compliant CIDSet. Maybe different people<br>
> > interpret the standard in a different way. But it would be nice to<br>
> > know whether somebody else investigated this issue already.<br>
> ><br>
> > Regards,<br>
> > Reinhard<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> which pdf/a ?<br>
<br>
</div></div>PDF/A-1b<br>
<span class=""><br>
> <a href="https://pdfbox.apache.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://pdfbox.apache.org/</a><br>
><br>
> says<br>
> """<br>
> Preflight<br>
> Validate PDF files against the PDF/A-1b standard.<br>
> """<br>
<br>
</span>PDFbox was one of the validators I used. It didn't complain.<br>
<br>
There is probably a newer release. Somebody said on a mailing list<br>
that he submitted a patch which adds object numbers to error<br>
messages. Sounds very reasonable and useful.<br>
<br>
BTW, I validated both validators before.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://ms25.no-ip.info/pdfa/validate-pdftron.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://ms25.no-ip.info/pdfa/validate-pdftron.html</a><br>
<a href="http://ms25.no-ip.info/pdfa/validate-pdfbox.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://ms25.no-ip.info/pdfa/validate-pdfbox.html</a><br>
<br>
I also used the online validators<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.validatepdfa.com/online.htm" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.validatepdfa.com/online.htm</a><br>
<br>
and<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.pdf-tools.com/pdf/validate-pdfa-online.aspx" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.pdf-tools.com/pdf/validate-pdfa-online.aspx</a><br>
<br>
Finally I asked Ross Moore to check my file with Acrobat Pro v.11.<br>
<br>
Only PDFtron complained about an uncomplete CIDSet.<br>
<div class=""><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div>I think we can assume Acrobat Pro v.11 as reference, so PDFtron</div><div>could be wrong. You can contact the pdftron team and</div><div>show them the problem, with the report from </div></div><div>Acrobat Pro v.11 --- it would be nice to hear their answer.<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Validating a pdf/a-1b is a quite complicate task, so in the real life you want </div><div>validate with the "best" validator --- and cross the fingers.</div><div>Acrobat Pro is one of the best validators around so if it says that it's ok, then you have strong reasons to say that it's ok.<br></div><div>In my opinion, pdf/a is a great thing, but the lack of free & solid pdf/a-1a validators still limits its adoption.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">luigi<br></div>
</div></div>