[luatex] luatex doesn't set /Smask in pdf 2.0

[luigi scarso]

On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 8:20 PM Frank Mittelbach <
frank.mittelbach at latex-project.org> wrote:

>   Luigi
>
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 6:12 PM Frank Mittelbach
> > <frank.mittelbach at latex-project.org
> > <mailto:frank.mittelbach at latex-project.org>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >     that mean never then. It is an iso standard and iso standards are to
> be
> >     paid for. 1.7 was an exception as that was published as a draft still
> >     under the Adobe flag. Maybe that needs then some sponsor so that at
> >     least one copy could be bought for you, say.
> >
> >
> >
> > https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index.html
> > <https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index.html>
>
> those are only a small subset,


sure but many are on the IT field , and  there are  also
ISO/IEC 14496-22:2019 EN 4th
Information technology — Coding of audio-visual objects — Part 22: Open
Font Format

ISO/IEC 14496-22:2019/Amd 1:2020 EN 4th
Information technology — Coding of audio-visual objects — Part 22: Open
Font Format — Amendment 1: Color font technology and other updatespentype

(of course we  follow also the ms site )



> the pdf standard is not among them, is
> it? So, yes I should have said *most* iso  standards are to be paid for.
>
> It is here:
>
> https://www.iso.org/standard/75839.html
>
> and it is more expensive than I remembered, somewhat in the ball park of
> $250 per copy, but still I think the community should be able to afford
> that, if that is what it takes.
>
>
Well,  if the ~ 1k pages of pdf 2.0 were totally different from pdf 1.x, I
should say yes, the cost is justified --- and in this case, luatex  should
drop anything related to pdf 2.0.
But as far as I know, pdf 2.0 is almost like 1.x, so most of the job was
already done...
Anyway, this is not the point:  it is perfectly fine to pay for standards,
but the pdf/xe/lua tex  model until today was  based on the assumption
that the specs were freely available so that , at the end of the story, we
can offer a solid program that makes a robust pdf  (a free pdf reference is
also very important for viewers).
This is not true anymore for pdf 2.0 .
Ideally the TUG should make available the specs to the tex developers (and
contributors?) , practically I don't know if it's feasible
(just to say that we should also consider the macro developers and
contributors for e.g.  PGF/TikZ).

We do have a good chance to outrun a lot of the commercial applications
> when producing PDF from TeX (or rather luatex) but it is a little
> hampered if one has looses, e.g., transparency in graphics, if one sets
> the pdf version to 2
>
>
As  luatex developers, the goal is to produce a robust program  that makes
a robust pdf (and dvi),
and, as of today, we cannot claim that luatex supports pdf 2.0 .
Saying that , the patch in this case looks quite straight .

--
luigi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://tug.org/pipermail/luatex/attachments/20210630/caaa9a9d/attachment-0001.html>