Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Possible false positive in veraPDF when testing for CIDSystemInfo entry in CIDFont dictionary #558

Closed
a7k opened this issue May 26, 2016 · 6 comments
Assignees

Comments

@a7k
Copy link

a7k commented May 26, 2016

http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696797#c1
https://0x0.st/qpS.html

The validation test detailed in https://github.com/veraPDF/veraPDF-validation-profiles/wiki/PDFA-Parts-2-and-3-rules#rule-62113-1 could lead to false positives.
I can't attach a PDF to test this issue directly on this bug tracker.

@bdoubrov bdoubrov self-assigned this May 29, 2016
@bdoubrov
Copy link
Contributor

I can't access the attachments at bugs.ghostscript.com without authorization. Is there any way to share a test file that reproduces the issue?

@a7k
Copy link
Author

a7k commented May 30, 2016

I could send a copy of the file by mail, in that case I'd ask if admin@verapdf.org is a correct address for this purpose. I've been asked not to make the test files publicly available.

@bdoubrov
Copy link
Contributor

If you could send test files to boris.doubrov@duallab.com, it would really be great. Thanks!

@a7k
Copy link
Author

a7k commented May 30, 2016

I've sent you an e-mail, anyway I've just noticed that the issue can be reproduced converting a LibreOffice PDF/A-1a to PDF/A-2b via ghostscript, hence I'll link a sample PDF here as well.
https://0x0.st/bwh.pdf

@bdoubrov
Copy link
Contributor

Apparently, the issue is already fixed in the integration branch. It will be included into the coming VeraPDF release.

@a7k
Copy link
Author

a7k commented May 30, 2016

I see. I've tried to validate with development snapshots/integration branch last week but the outcome was the same.
I've now grabbed again the latest snapshot and I can confirm that this issue is fixed.
Thank you for having looked at it

@a7k a7k closed this as completed May 30, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants