4 ms·
> They are mad that the pdf’s their scanner produces don’t work properly The PDF that FineReader made worked properly. The one that Preview made didn't.
by ihuman 6y ago
> They are mad that the pdf’s their scanner produces don’t work properly
The PDF that FineReader made worked properly. The one that Preview made didn't.
- zepto 6y agoHow do you know it worked properly?
- ihuman 6y agoThe first paragraph and image in the article. When the author copied the text from FineReader's PDF and pasted it in TextEdit, it had the correct text. When the author tried that with preview's pdf, it pasted garbled data.
- zepto 6y agoThat doesn’t mean there wasn’t file corruption.
- ihuman 6y agoI never said anything about file corruption. You asked how I know FineReader worked properly, and I explained why the article showed it working properly, and that preview doesn't work properly anymore.
- zepto 6y agoFile corruption would be a way it would not be working properly that wouldn’t be revealed by what you did.
- dkonofalski 6y agoThat doesn't mean it's a valid PDF. Preview has error correction to try and recover document data when metadata is corrupt. It's entirely possible that the documents have always had corrupt metadata and that Preview now expects stricter PDF guidelines.