Better way to edit PDF forms with any desired font using freeware?

On 04/05/2019 01.44, nospam wrote:
In article , Paul
wrote:


Actually, a PDF is whatever Adobe says it is.

no, because they don't own the spec.

Nor do they limit themselves to the spec. They aim to create new defacto
specs that only they can fulfil and monetize.

Other people can do additions outside of the spec, but good luck having
them catch.

So yes, there is a PDF spec, but in fact "a PDF is whatever Adobe says
it is".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF

Example:

«PDF 1.7, the sixth edition of the PDF specification that became ISO
32000-1, includes some proprietary technologies defined only by Adobe,
such as Adobe XML Forms Architecture (XFA) and JavaScript extension for
Acrobat, which are referenced by ISO 32000-1 as normative and
indispensable for the full implementation of the ISO 32000-1
specification. These proprietary technologies are not standardized and
their specification is published only on Adobe’s
website.[8][9][10][11][12] Many of them are also not supported by
popular third-party implementations of PDF.»

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 04/05/2019 02.01, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
On Fri, 03 May 2019 17:47:24 -0400, Paul wrote:

Actually, a PDF is whatever Adobe says it is.

Hi Paul,

Those who make claims that a PDF has only one purpose are simply proving
that they are severely limited in what _they_ can do, not the PDF.

The more correct answer is that a PDF is whatever the creators and
receivers want it to be, where, by way of example, I often remove
artificial printing or copying restrictions if that's what I want to do
with a PDF.

Nevertheless, Paul is correct in saying that the PDF format is designed
as an end format, not an editable format. Yes, you can edit it, but it
is a kludge.

That's why it is difficult find software to do it, and getting good results.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

In article , Carlos E. R.
wrote:

Actually, a PDF is whatever Adobe says it is.

no, because they don't own the spec.

Nor do they limit themselves to the spec. They aim to create new defacto
specs that only they can fulfil and monetize.

no, they aim to create tools that professionals want, and succeed at at.

Other people can do additions outside of the spec, but good luck having
them catch.

if others can create tools as good as adobe's for less cost, then they
would catch on.

On Sat, 4 May 2019 14:12:47 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

Nevertheless, Paul is correct in saying that the PDF format is designed
as an end format, not an editable format. Yes, you can edit it, but it
is a kludge.

That's why it is difficult find software to do it, and getting good results.

Hi Carlos,

(EDIT: Please see the related technical question at the end of this post.)

This thread has been, IMHO, a fantastic use of the Potluck Picnic that is
Usenet, where, for the most part, Keith Nuttle provided a fantastic
general-purpose solution to the stated problem set.

For that I'm grateful that Usenet worked, as it should, in this thread.

With respect to the tangent sub thread of what the purpose of anything is
(e.g., what's the purpose of life?), I often claim to merely own the
comprehensive skills of at least an adult of average intelligence, (if
that). At the same time, I also claim to have been removing permissions,
editing, and annotating PDFs for quite a few years, as a user, which I
claim is my right.

Hence, I completely understand your one-sided assertion, which is that the
"creator" of the PDF, essentially (which includes the approver of the PDF
spec), certainly decides how they _wish_ their document (and the format) to
be used by the consumer of those documents (and the format).

My point was clearly that I look at this from both sides, in that the
_user_ also has a say in what he wants to do with documents that are on his
system, particularly documents that are, in this case, _intended_ to be
filled out and re-submitted electronically, but which do not use editable
forms.

Those documents, if they're to be re-submitted electronically, require
(some kind of) edit, do they not?

BTW, this brings up a forms-related point that I hadn't considered, which
maybe you, or someone else can help with the answer to.

If we're handed any specific document (like I was handed, via email):
Q: How can we best unambiguously tell whether the document is stored in an
electronic "form" style?

Is there a "property" we can look at that is independent of the software
which we use to read in that PDF initially, for us to unambiguously know
whether it's "intended" to be edited in an electronic form-like way?

On Sat, 4 May 2019 07:13:42 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:

Even if you save
the original PDF document, the response remains as a comments and can be
deleted.

Hi Keith,

Thank you again for bringing tasty items of value to the Usenet Potluck.
o I hadn't realized the comments were saved separately until now

Knowing this has value because we can take advantage of the re-use
o And knowing this means we need to be sure to "embed" them as you do

One additional question I have, that I only thought of while responding to
Carlos' suggestion that we're, essentially, abusing the PDF (my words, not
his), is how do we KNOW, for sure, whether the original PDF is an
electronic form (intended to be filled out electronically), or if it's a
"dumb" form, intended to be printed, hand annotated, re-scanned, and then
sent?

Do you (or anyone who reads this), know if there is an unambiguous way to
tell, no matter what PDF reader software we use (e.g., I often use
non-Adobe products to read PDFs), the difference between:
o An "electronic form" intended to be filled out electronically, versus
o The "dumb" form, intended to be printed, hand annotated, & re-scanned?

Do "electronic form PDFs", have a unique generally available "property"
(i.e., available to all PDF readers) that we can easily ascertain?

On 5/4/2019 3:14 PM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
On Sat, 4 May 2019 07:13:42 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:

Even if you save
the original PDF document, the response remains as a comments and can be
deleted.

Hi Keith,

Thank you again for bringing tasty items of value to the Usenet Potluck.
o I hadn't realized the comments were saved separately until now

Knowing this has value because we can take advantage of the re-use
o And knowing this means we need to be sure to "embed" them as you do

One additional question I have, that I only thought of while responding to
Carlos' suggestion that we're, essentially, abusing the PDF (my words, not
his), is how do we KNOW, for sure, whether the original PDF is an
electronic form (intended to be filled out electronically), or if it's a
"dumb" form, intended to be printed, hand annotated, re-scanned, and then
sent?

Do you (or anyone who reads this), know if there is an unambiguous way to
tell, no matter what PDF reader software we use (e.g., I often use
non-Adobe products to read PDFs), the difference between:
o An "electronic form" intended to be filled out electronically, versus
o The "dumb" form, intended to be printed, hand annotated, & re-scanned?

Do "electronic form PDFs", have a unique generally available "property"
(i.e., available to all PDF readers) that we can easily ascertain?

My guess it that it does not make any difference if the original
document was intended to be a form or not. Using the "Comment" as I
described a Comment can be embedded with any document,text or image
based (Like that word "embedded" in this usage, but did think of that
word in my original response)

I think this was an outgrowth of Adobe's attempt to make the PDF format,
a document that can be passed around for Collaboration. ie to be used
with the Redact, Send for review, etc, functions. The similar functions
could be used for the online approval of documents in a regulated
environment, ie FDA, ISO, Legal, etc The PDF format would be Word
Processor independent, so any one with the Adobe Reader DC could be
included in the review.

--
2018: The year we learn to play the great game of Euchre

On 04/05/2019 21.00, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
On Sat, 4 May 2019 14:12:47 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

Nevertheless, Paul is correct in saying that the PDF format is designed
as an end format, not an editable format. Yes, you can edit it, but it
is a kludge.

That's why it is difficult find software to do it, and getting good results.

Hi Carlos,

(EDIT: Please see the related technical question at the end of this post.)

This thread has been, IMHO, a fantastic use of the Potluck Picnic that is
Usenet, where, for the most part, Keith Nuttle provided a fantastic
general-purpose solution to the stated problem set.

For that I'm grateful that Usenet worked, as it should, in this thread.

With respect to the tangent sub thread of what the purpose of anything is
(e.g., what's the purpose of life?), I often claim to merely own the
comprehensive skills of at least an adult of average intelligence, (if
that). At the same time, I also claim to have been removing permissions,
editing, and annotating PDFs for quite a few years, as a user, which I
claim is my right.

Hence, I completely understand your one-sided assertion, which is that the
"creator" of the PDF, essentially (which includes the approver of the PDF
spec), certainly decides how they _wish_ their document (and the format) to
be used by the consumer of those documents (and the format).

No, the creator of the PDF file. He can also password protect the PDF,
and allow certain things or others.


My point was clearly that I look at this from both sides, in that the
_user_ also has a say in what he wants to do with documents that are on his
system, particularly documents that are, in this case, _intended_ to be
filled out and re-submitted electronically, but which do not use editable
forms.

Those documents, if they're to be re-submitted electronically, require
(some kind of) edit, do they not?

No, just filling the form in the manner the designer of that PDF file
thought of. Any PDF reader out there does this better or worse. At
worst, print, fill by ball pen, and submit in person - if the form does
not allow filling electronically, then don't.

Otherwise, there are kludges to do it.



BTW, this brings up a forms-related point that I hadn't considered, which
maybe you, or someone else can help with the answer to.

If we're handed any specific document (like I was handed, via email):
Q: How can we best unambiguously tell whether the document is stored in an
electronic "form" style?

Is there a "property" we can look at that is independent of the software
which we use to read in that PDF initially, for us to unambiguously know
whether it's "intended" to be edited in an electronic form-like way?

You open it with adobe reader. Can you fill the form? If yes, it is an
electronic form. Easy!

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 04/05/2019 22.35, Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 5/4/2019 3:14 PM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
On Sat, 4 May 2019 07:13:42 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:


Do "electronic form PDFs", have a unique generally available "property"
(i.e., available to all PDF readers) that we can easily ascertain?

My guess it that it does not make any difference if the original
document was intended to be a form or not.Â* Using the "Comment" as I
described a Comment can be embedded with any document,text or image
based (Like that word "embedded" in this usage, but did think of that
word in my original response)

I think this was an outgrowth of Adobe's attempt to make the PDF format,
a document that can be passed around for Collaboration.Â* ie to be used
with the Redact, Send for review, etc, functions.Â* The similar functions
could be used for the online approval of documents in a regulated
environment, ie FDA, ISO, Legal, etcÂ*Â* The PDF format would be Word
Processor independent, so any one with the Adobe Reader DC could be
included in the review.

That is a terrible idea. Documents used online should not require use of
a specific software. Specially if they come from the administration.

And of course, the PDF is not a format designed to be edited in the way
of a word processor. For that, use a real word processor and a format
designed for word processing.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

wrote:
Dan, I think you should know that this is Arlen's M.O. to twist everything
he says , achieving his purpose of getting everyone upset. In my
opinion, he is a self-proclaimed expert with the Android OS, but is
unable to comprehend anything else unless you use one syllable words.
I suggest you block him, but it's your choice.

I probably should ...

but then again, the interesting side conversations (aka "****ting in the
cereal" or whatever turn of phrase) can be quite enlightening.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlzOEe wACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooEyUAf/QeIugytGaUYSkpdbTVHBIrK5F5Pi4EG33dOnzXUUUa/+ZeJcIMtdf9RK
+YgPGydD5ucf+qHD790VVBsq5nLsoFQYyUoDtEdmW1FMsRwUKE D5Z+RW9tzxVyTw
z6ybzpIBPYCILGDuL+27T3EYBKcD/uJ0SsV6HCeaVXEll3ummVecXVyHsZnbZgRC
TxNlQhRUxdNa7iKiSdszMQ8B3/w0vb1r7DQ/kL4ibP9yujGq3E2LYOvPPFr4iZUi
VTDueOlGZm1hOC0mKem5Gi5/aVPrQfa1agngjGYpDI4ffN8UFd9StbKKo/pZRCfe
RtJE7wZ7gurwwBl/bfVe4shPZnK7sQ==
=6VOd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

On Sat, 4 May 2019 16:35:16 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:

My guess it that it does not make any difference if the original
document was intended to be a form or not.

Hi Keith,

I agree with you that the PDF is whatever you want it to be, unlike those
who are limited in what they can do who seem to claim that a PDF is only
what the originator wants it to be.

For example, I've stripped off restrictive permissions in PDFs so many
times that I can't count them, although I haven't had to do that for quite
some time now.

In stark contrast to those who advocate the Apple-user-like attitude of
"just give up", I've never failed to edit a PDF in a way that I wanted to
edit it, although I've often had to resort to a variety of tools to do so.

I most often convert PDFs to MS Office documents, where even MS Word can
"edit" a PDF https://www.jotform.com/edit-pdf/, but as you know, that
isn't always a single-step operation, where I don't spend a lot of time on
that unless I really need to edit the document a lot.

For annotations, such as filling out forms, almost any software works (as
we've shown in this thread). Here's a list of PDF editors, for example:
o ApowerPDF
o FormSwift
o Sejda
o InkScape
o PDF-XChange Editor
o PDF Viewer Plus
o Xodo
o Nitro PDF Reader (they say it edits)
o Foxit Reader (they say it edits)
o Acrobat Reader (it edits too)
etc.
https://www.jotform.com/edit-pdf/

I can't think of a single thing that Adobe Acrobat Writer (or Reader) does
that can't be done with freeware, even down to the creation of a web site
PDF.

Of course, there are plenty of payware PDF editors out there, for example:
o Wondershare PDFelement
"Completely Edit PDF, Anyway You Want"
https://pdf.wondershare.net/ad/pdf-editor/form-bing.html

The main unanswered question is how to tell if a PDF is an electronic form,
or just a dumb PDF using _any_ software (such as Irfanview, for example) to
read it.

Certainly there is a way, as described by that Wondershare tool:
"The program will automatically detect whether the form is
interactive or not. If it is, a "Highlight Fields" bar will
appear, which indicates that there are fields you can edit
and fill in."
https://pdf.wondershare.com/how-to/edit-pdf-form.html

Apparently Adobe calls these differences:
o Interactive fillable forms, versus
o Flat forms
https://helpx.adobe.com/acrobat/using/filling-pdf-forms.html

Given that the underlying format of a PDF is open to the user, I'm sure
there's an easy way to determine, with a non-Adobe tool, whether the PDF is
a "flat" or "interactive" form, where I'm not that curious as to look it up
at this time - but where if I ever need it, I won't go the typical
Apple-user route of "just give up".

On Sat, 4 May 2019 23:11:43 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

No, the creator of the PDF file. He can also password protect the PDF,
and allow certain things or others.

Hi Carlos,
I don't remove the password for fun, so I haven't done it in a long time,
but _every_ password-protected PDF I ever ran into, in the past, was
trivial to remove the password.

All you had to do was use a program that didn't respect the password.
o It was _that_ easy, as I recall.

I could dig up the cites, but I don't feel like it since I haven't needed
to remove the password protection for quite a while, but it was only a
nuisance, not a protection, as I recall.

No, just filling the form in the manner the designer of that PDF file
thought of. Any PDF reader out there does this better or worse. At
worst, print, fill by ball pen, and submit in person - if the form does
not allow filling electronically, then don't.

Hi Carlos,
I say this with a smile, but you're beginning to sound like a typical Apple
user who doesn't even realize how vastly limited they are in what they can
do.

Apple users all the time "just give up".

If I want an electronically edited PDF, I don't "just give up".
If I want to print a print-protected PDF, I don't "just give up".
If I want to copy text from a copy-protected PDF, I don't "just give up".

And, more to the point, if a PDF is intended to be printed, hand annotated
and re-scanned before it can be electronically shipped, I edit it
electronically, skipping the printing & scanning steps.

In other words, I don't "just give up", like you appear to be advocating.

I do whatever I want to do with a PDF, that I can do.
o Which is pretty much whatever I want to do with that PDF.


You open it with adobe reader. Can you fill the form? If yes, it is an
electronic form. Easy!

Hehhehheh... that doesn't answer the question, but it's the best answer we
have so far.

I suspect there is a way that is general purpose, but I don't, offhand,
know any other way, where in general, the _last_ tool I use on anything is
something from either Apple (e.g., iTunes) or Adobe (e.g., Acrobat Reader).

What's shocking, and a bit terrifying, is how many people meekly submit,
like sheep being led by the nose, by those two companies, whose software
is, I consider, utterly abominable in many cases.

In article , Arlen G. Holder
wrote:

I most often convert PDFs to MS Office documents, where even MS Word can
"edit" a PDF

converting a pdf to a different format is *not* 'editing a pdf'.

In article , Arlen G. Holder
wrote:

I don't remove the password for fun, so I haven't done it in a long time,
but _every_ password-protected PDF I ever ran into, in the past, was
trivial to remove the password.

then whatever you supposedly ran into was not properly encrypted.

On 05/05/2019 01.02, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
On Sat, 4 May 2019 23:11:43 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

No, the creator of the PDF file. He can also password protect the PDF,
and allow certain things or others.

Hi Carlos,
I don't remove the password for fun, so I haven't done it in a long time,
but _every_ password-protected PDF I ever ran into, in the past, was
trivial to remove the password.

All you had to do was use a program that didn't respect the password.
o It was _that_ easy, as I recall.

I could dig up the cites, but I don't feel like it since I haven't needed
to remove the password protection for quite a while, but it was only a
nuisance, not a protection, as I recall.

No, just filling the form in the manner the designer of that PDF file
thought of. Any PDF reader out there does this better or worse. At
worst, print, fill by ball pen, and submit in person - if the form does
not allow filling electronically, then don't.

Hi Carlos,
I say this with a smile, but you're beginning to sound like a typical Apple
user who doesn't even realize how vastly limited they are in what they can
do.

You know very well that I don't use any apple hardware.


Apple users all the time "just give up".

If I want an electronically edited PDF, I don't "just give up".
If I want to print a print-protected PDF, I don't "just give up".
If I want to copy text from a copy-protected PDF, I don't "just give up".

And, more to the point, if a PDF is intended to be printed, hand annotated
and re-scanned before it can be electronically shipped, I edit it
electronically, skipping the printing & scanning steps.

In other words, I don't "just give up", like you appear to be advocating.

I don't advocate anything...

I do whatever I want to do with a PDF, that I can do.
o Which is pretty much whatever I want to do with that PDF.

but what you are using is a kludge.

Of course I have filled electronically forms that were not forms, had to
be printed. I filled then in the computer, with kludges. And then
printed them already filled because the administration that wanted them,
required paper, anyway... A modern and proper administration will
properly design PDF forms that can be filled with any reader on any
computer or tablet without any trouble.

You open it with adobe reader. Can you fill the form? If yes, it is an
electronic form. Easy!

Hehhehheh... that doesn't answer the question, but it's the best answer we
have so far.

I suspect there is a way that is general purpose, but I don't, offhand,
know any other way, where in general, the _last_ tool I use on anything is
something from either Apple (e.g., iTunes) or Adobe (e.g., Acrobat Reader).

What's shocking, and a bit terrifying, is how many people meekly submit,
like sheep being led by the nose, by those two companies, whose software
is, I consider, utterly abominable in many cases.

You should know too, but maybe you have not figured out, that I do not
use adobe products either... because they don't exist in Linux. The
tools I might use to find out what type of PDF it is (pdfinfo) you
probably can not use, so I'd better not post them here ;-)

The fact remains, Adobe Reader is the canonical tool to open a PDF. Any
other tool may or may not cope, but if it doesn't another tool might -
thus better save time and try directly with adobe Reader.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 05/05/2019 01.49, nospam wrote:
In article , Arlen G. Holder
wrote:

I most often convert PDFs to MS Office documents, where even MS Word can
"edit" a PDF

converting a pdf to a different format is *not* 'editing a pdf'.


Agree.

Arguably, a PDF is impossible to edit. It is "decompiled", then edited,
then another PDF is created.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.