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

PDF/A-1 rule 6.7.2-2 ignores clarification from ISO 19005-1:2005 TECHNICAL CORRIGENDUM 2 #1195

Open
mkl-public opened this issue Oct 22, 2021 · 5 comments
Assignees
Labels
bug A product defect that needs fixing fixed-in-dev P3 Low priority bugs
Milestone

Comments

@mkl-public
Copy link

mkl-public commented Oct 22, 2021

PDF/A-1 rule 6.7.2-2 (Metadata streams and Filter entries) is still based on the original ISO 19005-1:2005 wording

Metadata object stream dictionaries shall not contain the Filter key.

and from that derives that no Metadata stream at all may contain the Filter key.

But ISO 19005-1:2005 TECHNICAL CORRIGENDUM 2 has replaced the entire subclause, and the new wording on Metadata streams and Filter entries now is

The metadata stream dictionary, which is the value of the Metadata key in the document catalog dictionary, shall not contain the Filter key.

I.e. this corrigendum (among other things) clarified that the ban for Filter entries in Metadata streams only refers to the Metadata in the Catalog.

Thus, does veraPDF ignore the corrigendum 2 here for a reason or is this a bug?


Related: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-5305

@bdoubrov
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for reporting this issue. Fully agree. We'll fix it in the coming release.

@bdoubrov
Copy link
Contributor

bdoubrov commented Oct 29, 2021

I have to reconsider the above comment, as exactly this question has been already discussed and documented in PDF Association's TN0010 note: https://www.pdfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/TechNote0010.pdf - Compressed non-document Metadata in PDF/A-1 (A017).

This is exactly the reason why veraPDF implements it this way. And I also see several corpus files to cover this.

@mkl-public
Copy link
Author

mkl-public commented Oct 29, 2021

But that note also refers to the formulation in the original spec, not the reformulation in the second corrigendum.

Is there a reason why this PDFA document ignores the corrigendum?

Maybe this should go back to the TWG with the hint to look at the corrigendum.

@bdoubrov
Copy link
Contributor

This has been discussed and confirmed at PDF/A TWG (the corrigendum is correct and Technical Note 0010 requires an update). The next step would be to publish the update to Technical Note 0010 and then change the behavior of veraPDF validator.

@carlwilson carlwilson assigned bdoubrov and unassigned MaximPlusov Feb 1, 2022
@carlwilson carlwilson added bug A product defect that needs fixing P3 Low priority bugs labels Feb 1, 2022
@carlwilson carlwilson added this to the 1.22 milestone Feb 1, 2022
@bdoubrov bdoubrov modified the milestones: 1.22, 1.26 Jul 4, 2023
@MaximPlusov MaximPlusov modified the milestones: 1.26, 1.28 May 22, 2024
@ceztko
Copy link

ceztko commented Aug 9, 2024

I posted yesterday the same exact issue in the veraPDF users mailing list (but was blocked by moderation because there's a 40kb limit, and I had few attachments/images). I hope to see this fixed for 1.28. Here is a PDF sample that should validate correctly with the new interpretation secondary-metadata-filter-pdfa.pdf .

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug A product defect that needs fixing fixed-in-dev P3 Low priority bugs
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants