Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #270774 > unrolled thread

Re: Creating PDF/A from LaTeX source and from existing PDF

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Re: Creating PDF/A from LaTeX source and from existing PDF Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 18:40 +0200
    Re: Creating PDF/A from LaTeX source and from existing PDF Van Snyder <van.snyder@sbcglobal.net> - 2024-07-03 21:30 +0200
      Re: Creating PDF/A from LaTeX source and from existing PDF eben@gmx.us - 2024-07-03 21:40 +0200
      Re: Creating PDF/A from LaTeX source and from existing PDF Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 23:10 +0200
        Re: Creating PDF/A from LaTeX source and from existing PDF Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-07-03 23:20 +0200
          Re: Creating PDF/A from LaTeX source and from existing PDF Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 23:30 +0200
            Re: Creating PDF/A from LaTeX source and from existing PDF Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-07-04 05:20 +0200
              Re: Creating PDF/A from LaTeX source and from existing PDF jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 05:20 +0200
        small font (was: Re: Creating PDF/A from LaTeX source and from  existing PDF) Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 04:40 +0200
          Re: small font Michel Verdier <mv524@free.fr> - 2024-07-04 11:00 +0200
            Re: small font "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2024-07-04 11:30 +0200
              Re: small font Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-07-04 14:40 +0200
            Re: small font Roger Price <roger@rogerprice.org> - 2024-07-04 11:40 +0200
              Re: small font jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 12:30 +0200
                Re: small font <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-07-04 12:40 +0200
                  Re: small font jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 13:20 +0200
                    Re: small font Richard Owlett <rowlett@access.net> - 2024-07-04 13:50 +0200
                    Re: small font Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-07-04 14:30 +0200
                      Re: small font Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 15:10 +0200
                    Re: small font Michel Verdier <mv524@free.fr> - 2024-07-04 14:30 +0200
                Re: small font Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 05:00 +0200
            Re: small font Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 16:30 +0200
              Re: small font Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-07-04 16:50 +0200
                Re: small font Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 17:00 +0200
                  Re: small font Michel Verdier <mv524@free.fr> - 2024-07-04 18:00 +0200
                    Re: small font Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-07-05 06:40 +0200
                    Re: small font Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 10:50 +0200
                  Re: small font Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 05:10 +0200
                    Re: small font Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 11:00 +0200
                      Re: small font Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-07-05 13:40 +0200
                        Re: small font Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 14:10 +0200
                          Re: small font Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2024-07-05 14:10 +0200
                            Re: small font Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 14:20 +0200
                          Re: small font Felix Miata <mrmazda@stanis.net> - 2024-07-05 20:10 +0200
                            Re: small font Felix Miata <mrmazda@stanis.net> - 2024-07-05 21:10 +0200
                              Re: small font debian-user@howorth.org.uk - 2024-07-06 16:50 +0200
                                Re: small font Felix Miata <mrmazda@stanis.net> - 2024-07-07 01:20 +0200
                                  Re: small font <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-07-07 07:40 +0200
                          Re: small font Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 04:40 +0200
    Re: Creating PDF/A from LaTeX source and from existing PDF Ceppo <ceppo@oziosi.org> - 2024-07-08 19:00 +0200
      Re: Creating PDF/A from LaTeX source and from existing PDF Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 00:10 +0200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#270848 — Re: small font

On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 9:58 AM jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/7/24 17:13, Roger Price wrote:
> >
> > The Debian mailing list Code of Conduct at
> > https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/
> > is clear:
> >
> > « Please don't send your messages in HTML; use plain text instead »
>
> I presume there is some compelling reason that the mailing list doesn't
> filter html emails and only resend the text only version?

Yeah, the policy should be enforced at the list server if it is an
important policy. As an example, Vger will reject HTML messages since
the kernel folks feel HTML emails are a characteristic of spam. See
<http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html>.

If it is not an important policy, then it should probably be removed
from the FAQ.

Jeff

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270816 — Re: small font

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

If you ever want to be taken seriously, stop spreading such bogus nonsense.
Even base64 encoding wouldn't blow up the size that much. No idea what bs
mail you are talking about, but for me, both the plain text and html
version are said to be 4k in size (by du). Even though that's not that
exact, simple logic is enough to be able to tell your claim is pretty much
impossible.

Best

On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 3:43 PM Michel Verdier <mv524@free.fr> wrote:

> As the html part is useless and multiply
> the mail size by almost 10.
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270817 — Re: small font

On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 16:19:44 +0200, Richard wrote:
> If you ever want to be taken seriously, stop spreading such bogus nonsense.
> Even base64 encoding wouldn't blow up the size that much. No idea what bs
> mail you are talking about, but for me, both the plain text and html
> version are said to be 4k in size (by du). Even though that's not that
> exact, simple logic is enough to be able to tell your claim is pretty much
> impossible.
> 
> Best
> 
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 3:43 PM Michel Verdier <mv524@free.fr> wrote:
> 
> > As the html part is useless and multiply
> > the mail size by almost 10.

Richard, your message to which I'm replying shows the following sizes:

  I     1 <no description>                     [multipa/alternativ, 7bit, 2.0K] 
  I     2 ├─><no description>                 [text/plain, quoted, utf-8, 0.5K] 
  I     3 └─><no description>                  [text/html, quoted, utf-8, 1.2K] 

The HTML part is more than double the size of the plain text part, and
when you include all of the MIME metadata needed to set up the multipart
message, the overall size of the body is about 4x what it would have been
if you'd only sent plain text (0.5k -> 2.0k).

Granted, this is not the 10x increase that Michel predicted, but it's
easy to see how a *different* HTML message, with a lot more markup,
could certainly reach that threshold.

Also, please stop top-posting your replies.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270818 — Re: small font

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Right, because 4x = 10x. Jesus, stop being so ridiculous. Also, there's
some magic trick called compression. Human readable text is especially easy
to compress, basically negating all those effects. So just stick to
reality, everything else is just embarrassing.

On Thu, Jul 4, 2024, 16:48 Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> wrote:

> The HTML part is more than double the size of the plain text part, and
> when you include all of the MIME metadata needed to set up the multipart
> message, the overall size of the body is about 4x what it would have been
> if you'd only sent plain text (0.5k -> 2.0k).
>
> Granted, this is not the 10x increase that Michel predicted, but it's
> easy to see how a *different* HTML message, with a lot more markup,
> could certainly reach that threshold.
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270821 — Re: small font

On 2024-07-04, Richard wrote:

> Right, because 4x = 10x. Jesus, stop being so ridiculous. Also, there's
> some magic trick called compression. Human readable text is especially easy
> to compress, basically negating all those effects. So just stick to
> reality, everything else is just embarrassing.

Please don't be rude.

Ok I over estimate the gap in *your* mails but not in other html mails
I've seen (as Greg correctly supposed).

Compression reduces the size but it's proportionnal so don't negate the
extra html size. The global size will always be 4-10x.

The *reality* is that you need to change just one option in your MUA.
And I stop here this thread.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270854 — Re: small font

> Compression reduces the size but it's proportionnal so don't negate the
> extra html size. The global size will always be 4-10x.

No, the compression is not proportional.  HTML is naturally very
redundant, and machine-generated HTML like the one seen in Richard's
email tends to be excruciatingly redundant, so it compresses even much
better than plain text.  Plus the part of the plain/text that's in
common with the text/html (i.e. the actual useful part) would usually be
recognized as a redundancy, so all in all you'll typically get a much
smaller size difference after compression.

Of course, that's if compression takes place, which is not necessarily
the case.  In practice, for most emails like the ones exchanged on this
mailing-list, the precise size of the message is largely irrelevant:
even if multiplied by 10x, the cost of the actual content is lost in the
noise of the rest of the protocol.


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270860 — Re: small font

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Not how lossless compression works. The final size depends much more on the
content than on how much content there is. By no means it's "proportional".

On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 10:09 PM Michel Verdier <mv524@free.fr> wrote:

> Compression reduces the size but it's proportionnal so don't negate the
> extra html size. The global size will always be 4-10x.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270849 — Re: small font

On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 2:58 PM Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Right, because 4x = 10x. Jesus, stop being so ridiculous. Also, there's some magic trick called compression.

Compression is a security hole. It leaks information. It should be
disabled. Infact, TLS v1.3 removed it from the protocol. Also see
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRIME> and
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREACH>.

> Human readable text is especially easy to compress, basically negating all those effects. So just stick to reality, everything else is just embarrassing.

Jeff

> On Thu, Jul 4, 2024, 16:48 Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> wrote:
>>
>> The HTML part is more than double the size of the plain text part, and
>> when you include all of the MIME metadata needed to set up the multipart
>> message, the overall size of the body is about 4x what it would have been
>> if you'd only sent plain text (0.5k -> 2.0k).
>>
>> Granted, this is not the 10x increase that Michel predicted, but it's
>> easy to see how a *different* HTML message, with a lot more markup,
>> could certainly reach that threshold.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270861 — Re: small font

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

And who was talking about transport? The whole discussion was about
storage, and storing mail compressed is hardly a security issue.

On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 5:02 AM Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> wrote:

> Compression is a security hole. It leaks information. It should be
> disabled. Infact, TLS v1.3 removed it from the protocol. Also see
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRIME> and
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREACH>.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270866 — Re: small font

On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 10:51:12 +0200, Richard wrote:
> And who was talking about transport? The whole discussion was about
> storage, and storing mail compressed is hardly a security issue.

The discussion was originally about your messages containing directives
to render all of your text in a small font.  Some readers found your
messages difficult to read for that reason, and we politely pointed it
out to you.

Everything after that has been you ranting against everyone who talks to
you, shifting the goalposts, and refusing to acknowledge that *any* of
your etiquette violations are your responsibility, or even a problem.

Your messages:

 * Are multipart text/html and text/plain.

 * Consistently use top-posting of your reply above the quoted text.

 * Contain directives to use small fonts that make reading them difficult
   for some people.

Two of these issues are breaches of list's established rules of etiquette,
and the third one is an unfortunate rudeness.  Yet, instead of taking
steps to correct any of them, you chose to shift the topic to message
sizes (which isn't the primary reason HTML email is frowned upon), and
then to compression efficiency (completely irrelevant, as email is
generally neither transmitted nor stored in a compressed form).

Anyway, this is pretty clearly a lost cause.  You're using gmail, which
is notoriously horrible, and it seems you are not willing to change your
behavior.  There's nothing more I can do to help you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270867 — Re: small font

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

You really need to better read who writes what. I didn't start the
discussion on message sizes due to HTML, I simply ended it because of
irrelevance.

On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 1:30 PM Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> wrote:

> [...] you chose to shift the topic to message
> sizes (which isn't the primary reason HTML email is frowned upon) [...]
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270869 — Re: small font

Richard (12024-07-05):
> You really need to better read who writes what. I didn't start the
> discussion on message sizes due to HTML, I simply ended it because of
> irrelevance.

And that ended the willingness of many people to help you.

Good luck with your problems.

-- 
  Nicolas George

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270870 — Re: small font

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Thank god nobody needs help from people so hung up on absolute irrelevant
stuff and rules that haven't made sense in decades - if ever. As you may
have read from the threads, those rules aren't undisputed at all. If they
where seen as relevant as some people want to make believe, the list
maintainers had automated the compliance on the server side long ago. They
didn't, so it can't be that relevant.

Also, you implying rudeness because of an unnoticed bug is just
hilarious and only shows that you just have no clue about what you are
writing and don't even bother properly reading threads before making up
accusations. So better hope nobody remembers your bad attitude if you ever
need help. Now stop spamming.

On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 2:05 PM Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> wrote:

> And that ended the willingness of many people to help you.
>
> Good luck with your problems.
>
> --
>   Nicolas George
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270872 — Re: small font

Van Snyder composed on 2024-07-05 11:01 (UTC-0700):

> I'm not able to read this message. 

Can you suggest to us why you think that might be?

> On Fri, 2024-07-05 at 14:01 +0200, Richard wrote:

>> You really need to better read who writes what. I didn't start the
>> discussion on message sizes due to HTML, I simply ended it because of
>> irrelevance.

>> On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 1:30 PM Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> wrote:
>> > [...] you chose to shift the topic to message
>> > sizes (which isn't the primary reason HTML email is frowned upon)
>> > [...]-- 
Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion,
	based on faith, not based on science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270874 — Re: small font

Van Snyder composed on 2024-07-05 11:45 (UTC-0700):

> On Fri, 2024-07-05 at 14:07 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:

>> > I'm not able to read this message. 

>> Can you suggest to us why you think that might be?

> Because the message was composed in html using a very small font, and
> my mail reader (evolution) automatically prefers to read mail in html.

> I've never before had to make an explicit request to the mail reader to
> switch to plain text, so I haven't taken the trouble to work out how to
> do it. It's easier to ignore messages that are either incompetently or
> intentionally composed so as to be unreadable without special actions
> taken by the recipients.

I don't use Evolution, but I suspect being a Gnome application that it works like
web browsers, where fonts can be enlarged using Ctrl-+ as many times as it takes
to grow the fonts adequately. Possibly it also has a minimum displayed text size
option as web browsers offer.

Evolution may also be able to do as I have done since last century, starting with
Netscape 2 email, then Netscape 3 email, then Netscape 4 email, then Mozilla
email, and eventually as now, SeaMonkey, the replacement name for Mozilla. That
is, to set select mail reading in plain text only mode via menu option

	view message body as plain text

Sometimes email is sent in multipart with no plain text content. Unless those come
from doctors or financial institutions, I consider them spam and delete without
attempting to read any included content. When necessary, I temporarily switch from
view message body as plain text to as simple HTML.
-- 
Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion,
	based on faith, not based on science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270892 — Re: small font

Van Snyder <van.snyder@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
 
> It's not my responsibility to deal with messages the senders aren't
> serious about being read.

It's up to you of course but if that's your opinion then you always
have the option of simply not reading messages that are sent (against
list guidelines) with HTML parts that suggest using fonts that are too
small for you.

Alternatively:

- you could search for how to adjust font sizes in evolution (hint
  edit/ preferences/ mail preferences/ general tab)

- you could set evolution to display the plain text version of emails

- you could choose another mail reader

Sadly whilst it is your opinion that it's not your responsibility, I
doubt many other people share your opinion, so I think your options are
limited to those within your own control, such as the four above.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270901 — Re: small font

Van Snyder composed on 2024-07-06 14:13 (UTC-0700):

> I know what to do to read messages with tiny fonts -- if I can see
> enough of it to decide they're interesting.

> So far, only one correspondent, whom I have by-and-large concluded
> doesn't have anything interesting to way.

> What I'm offering to those who send messages that they seriously
> consider to be worth reading: You ought to make them readable. If you
> make it hard for recipients to read them, they'll ignore your wisdom.

FWIW to any not familiar with how email was 30+ years ago, M$ and Win95 seem to be
the root blame for the practice of both use of not only HTML for email by default,
but also of defaulting to imposition of a smaller than default font size in those
HTML emails, apparently to match what web designers were doing, making email
mousetype similar to the web page mousetype those eagle-eyed designers were fond
of imposing on everyone in the days before zoom was invented. Most GUI email
clients, as well as webmail apps, seem to have followed this stupid, rude lead.
It's the sender not changing the rude default, typically not knowing it even
exists, or can be changed (though in some cases default cannot be changed), which
is the immediate locus for blame.
-- 
Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion,
	based on faith, not based on science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270903 — Re: small font

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, Jul 06, 2024 at 07:17:51PM -0400, Felix Miata wrote:

[...]

> FWIW to any not familiar with how email was 30+ years ago, M$ and Win95 seem to be
> the root blame for the practice of both use of not only HTML for email by default,
> but also of defaulting to imposition of a smaller than default font size in those
> HTML emails, apparently to match what web designers were doing, making email
> mousetype similar to the web page mousetype those eagle-eyed designers were fond
> of imposing on everyone in the days before zoom was invented.

[...]

Don't blame the designers. There has always been a struggle over control
of the end user's computer -- just as a means of reaching the end user's
perception. The companies are winning.

That's what we get when the companies financing the infrastructure are all,
basically, advertising companies (Microsoft? They don't make tech. They sell
tech).

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270877 — Re: small font

On 06/07/2024 01:01, Van Snyder wrote:
> I'm not able to read this message.

I do not think you will manage to achieve anything on this way. The 
person has clearly expressed that their are not going to follow 
recommendations concerning message format and do not care if messages 
cause trouble for some readers. Better options may be:

- Silently ignore.
- If you still expect something useful then find a way to deal with this 
kind of messages: temporary switch to plain text part, configure fonts, 
copy-paste text to an editor.
- Discuss with the mailer developers if they can implement some kind of 
workaround.
- Switch to another mail user agent.

P.S. Please, read
- <https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct>
- Monthly FAQ for Debian-user mailing list
   <https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/ZoJbUHqYu2GBOkKP@einval.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270941

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 06:38:51PM GMT, Richard wrote:
> From LaTeX, this is quite simple, there's a package for that - as for pretty
> much everything in the LaTeX world. Googling for just like 10 sec could have
> given you this great guide: https://webpages.tuni.fi/latex/pdfa-guide.pdf

I did my research and found the document you linked. In fact it's what pointed
me to the pdfx LaTeX package, but I couldn't make it work. I acknowledge I
missed its reference to veraPDF, though.

> gs -dQUIET -dUseCIEColor -sProcessColorModel=DeviceCMYK -sDEVICE=pdfwrite
> -dPDFACompatibilityPolicy=1 -dCompressFonts=true -dSubsetFonts=true
> -sFONTPATH=/usr/share/fonts/ -o <file name of output> <file name of input>

The output isn't accepted by veraPDF, either. I will try to understand
something more about ghostscript.


--
Ceppo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web