Bug 692531

Summary:	unable to decode JPX image data.
Product:	Ghostscript	Reporter:	Hin-Tak Leung <htl10>
Component:	JPX/JBIG2 encode/decode	Assignee:	Default assignee <ghostpdl-bugs>
Status:	RESOLVED WONTFIX
Severity:	normal
Priority:	P4
Version:	master
Hardware:	PC
OS:	Linux
Customer:		Word Size:	---

Description Hin-Tak Leung 2011-09-22 19:22:06 UTC

Bug 691880's attachment
http://bugs.ghostscript.com/attachment.cgi?id=7121

Generates a warning with ghostpdl-9.02-577-g9bb1af5 (current-ish git head):

---------------------
GPL Ghostscript GIT PRERELEASE 9.05 (2011-03-30)
Copyright (C) 2010 Artifex Software, Inc.  All rights reserved.
This software comes with NO WARRANTY: see the file PUBLIC for details.
Processing pages 1 through 1.
Page 1
unable to decode JPX image data.

   **** Warning: File has insufficient data for an image.

   **** This file had errors that were repaired or ignored.
   **** The file was produced by: 
   **** >>>> Adobe PDF Library 7.0 <<<<
   **** Please notify the author of the software that produced this
   **** file that it does not conform to Adobe's published PDF
   **** specification.
------------------------
xpdf also flags errors:
Syntax Error (448623): JPX stream has no supported color spec
Syntax Error (448623): JPX stream has no supported color spec

But acrobat reader 9.4.2 emits no errors. (given it was written by "Adobe PDF Library 7.0", no surprise there).

All of them seems to render the file to some extent - nothing obvious is missing.

Comment 1 Hin-Tak Leung 2011-11-03 21:21:03 UTC

Why is this wontfix? There was(is?) a warning/error message from ghostscript, but acrobat reader does not complain. I have no idea if there is any rendering differences. The warning needs to be investigated, if only to check if the warning/error is genuine and or if there is any rendering differences with acrobat.

Comment 2 Ray Johnston 2011-11-03 23:41:24 UTC

Unless the submitter identifies a problem, Ghostscript is intentionally MUCH
more aggressive about reporting PDF errors. Possibly try a PDF 'validator'
tool and if there are no warnings, then re-open the bug and attach the
output from -dPDFDEBUG and the relevant section that shows the warning and
why you think that the PDF is valid (and the warning in spurious)