-
1. Re: Duplicate entries in the Fields array
lrosenth Aug 25, 2014 7:38 AM (in response to ToM_1st)Meaning the same object reference is listed in the Fields array? Eg. ?
-
2. Re: Duplicate entries in the Fields array
ToM_1st Aug 25, 2014 9:38 AM (in response to lrosenth)Yes.
The fields array looks like that (I shortened it with ...):
749 0 obj
<</Fields[19 0 R 119 0 R 120 0 R 121 0 R 122 0 R 122 0 R 122 0 R 122 0 R 122 0 R 128 0 R 129 0 R 129 0 R 132 0 R 133 0 R 133 0 R 136 0 R 137 0 R 138 0 R 139 0 R 139 0 R ...]
As you can see the 122 0 R is in there 5x.
Now I also saw that in the Annots array are also duplicate values:
/Annots[119 0 R 120 0 R 121 0 R 123 0 R 123 0 R 124 0 R 123 0 R 124 0 R 125 0 R 123 0 R 124 0 R 125 0 R 126 0 R 123 0 R 124 0 R 125 0 R 126 0 R 127 0 R 128 0 R ...]
-
3. Re: Duplicate entries in the Fields array
lrosenth Aug 25, 2014 9:49 AM (in response to ToM_1st)Sounds like someone copied some fields and wanted them all to be the same. eird but I don't see any reason that it's illegal.
-
4. Re: Duplicate entries in the Fields array
ToM_1st Aug 26, 2014 1:39 AM (in response to lrosenth)Probably not illegal since the spec doesn't say "An array of unique references to the document’s root..." however not everything which isn't explicitly mentioned makes sense or is recommendable. So from my perspective its more on the illegal, than in the 'spirit of the spec' side
-
5. Re: Duplicate entries in the Fields array
ToM_1st Sep 19, 2014 3:18 AM (in response to lrosenth)A follow up to the discussion: I opened the document in the Life Cycle Designer and it showed me an error (as I would have expected it from acrobat).
The explanaination was that a (checked) radiobutton was referenced several times (due to the above problem). And that is definetly a violation of the spec - you can't have several checked radiobuttons in a group - and that is the reason why it should be illegal to have duplicate entries in the /Field or /Annots array (in my opinion).
Interesting to know that Lifecycle Designer seems "better" in this way than acrobat - since acrobat didn't complain and LifeCycle Designer showed the correct warning in the first place.


