Hi,
The restriction that Kari suggests below would be acceptable. I
would say that the restriction that the Producer must PREFIX
the stream length to the stream is wildly unacceptable. That's
the whole point of streams - they are of indefinite length until
some later time (in the Producer's execution path).
Bob Herriot's excellent (not applicable here) new MIME type
'application/vnd.pwg-multiplexed' (RFC 3391, December 2002)
addresses the same problem in the MIME enclosure space.
Note - Bob's solution is explicit chunking, as Carl Kugler
has suggested here.
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: Poysa, Kari [mailto:Kari.Poysa@usa.xerox.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 9:15 AM
To: 'Carl Kugler'
Cc: ifx@pwg.org
Subject: RE: IFX> PDF/is Issue.
In my opinion the goal should be to write the stream length immediately to
the stream dictionary.
Also, the likelihood of "endofstream" to exists in the data is small. We
could also require that if a low resource streaming writer is not able to
add the length directly into the stream directory, then the PDF object for
the length MUST immediately follow the stream object. This way, the reader
can scan for "endofstream" (but of course only if the length was not in the
stream dictionary) and make sure that it is the correct "endofstream" by
verifying that it is immediately followed by something that looks like a
length object. Could reader implementers comment on this?
I think introducing an additional filter like ASCII85 just for spotting the
end of stream adds unnecessary complexity to both writer and reader,
increases file sizes and also requires more memory and processing as the
stream cannot be passed directly to a decompressor.
--- Kari ---
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Kugler [mailto:kugler@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:50 AM
Cc: ifx@pwg.org
Subject: RE: IFX> PDF/is Issue.
I like the chunking approach. It is efficient, reliable, and has low
overhead for reasonably sized chunks. Also fits well in a typical
implementation that writes a chunk of data at a time.
-Carl
"Zehler, Peter" <PZehler@crt.xerox.com>
Sent by: owner-ifx@pwg.org
03/05/2003 05:00 AM
To: "'Rick Seeler'" <rseeler@adobe.com>, ifx@pwg.org
cc:
Subject: RE: IFX> PDF/is Issue.
Rick,
Why not just increase the size of the length field signature? Could this be
done by the addition of data or comments in the length object or by adding
another object? I don't know pdf very well. I don't think we need 0%
probability of confusion just a statistically insignificant chance.
Pete
Peter Zehler
XEROX
Xerox Architecture Center
Email: PZehler@crt.xerox.com
Voice: (585) 265-8755
FAX: (585) 265-8871
US Mail: Peter Zehler
Xerox Corp.
800 Phillips Rd.
M/S 128-30E
Webster NY, 14580-9701
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Seeler [mailto:rseeler@adobe.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 1:29 PM
To: ifx@pwg.org
Subject: IFX> PDF/is Issue.
During prototyping of PDF/is the following problem arose:
How does the Consumer know when the end of a data stream (See section 3.2.7
of [pdf]) is reached? Normally, in a PDF, the Consumer would consult the
stream length field. The problem here is where to put the length field. If
the length were placed before the stream, the Consumer would know how long
the stream is. This requires the Producer to know the stream's length before
writing it to the Consumer. If, instead, the length were written at the end
of the stream, this would solve the Producer's problem but the Consumer
would not know how to find the length since they can't identify, 100% of the
time, where the stream ends and where the length object is.
An example will illustrate:
First, the normal case...
stream
sdljfiwefnwfubrevurewliysnhr;hgawebfz;h;uwre (lots of binary data here)....
84trhdvfyu7wgf4.nbdrgur4uaru4gb
endstream
12 0 obj
3456 <- the length of the previous stream.
endobj
But, what if the data looked like this...
stream
sdljfiwefnwfubrevurewliysnhr;hgawebfz;h;uwre (lots of binary data here)....
endstream <- the binary data could have a string of bytes that
looked like this.
84trhdvfyu7wgf4.nbdrgur4uaru4gb
endstream
12 0 obj
4567 <- the length of the previous stream.
endobj
Of course, you could look to bytes after the appearance of the word
'endstream' to see if this is really the end of the stream; but you can
always come up with a stream that could match your parsing algorithm's
expectations (although with decreasing percentage of occurrence).
Possible solutions:
1) Write all data using ASCII85 encoding (See Section 3.3.2 of [pdf]). This
will increase stream lengths by 25%. ASCII85 has a stream delimiter which
would solve this problem -- the end of the stream can be known for certain
and the length field can be placed after the stream.
2) Require the Producer to write the stream length before any stream (the
streams would stay binary). The Producer can use banding to break up large
images into small enough chunks so the Producer can cache the stream before
sending.
3) Offer a combination of 1 & 2. The Producer would cache streams if
possible, but may use ASCII85, if necessary.
4) Producer must make certain all streams must not contain a series of bytes
"\0D\0Aendstream" in the stream data. This is how the spec is defined
currently -- but this may be too onerous for the Producer.
Any other ideas? I'm personally leaning toward solution #3.
-Rick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 06 2003 - 19:02:48 EST