Fixes#13107
In the issue, some TrueType glyph names have the format `uniXXXX`.
Font's `Encoding` dictionary has the entry `Differences` but no
`BaseEncoding`. `uniXXXX` names are converted to glyph indices
using font's `post` table but currently that is done only when
`BaseEncoding` exists. We must enable the conversion also when only
`Differences` exists.
Currently only URL-strings are officially supported by `getDocument`, however at this point in time I cannot really see any compelling reason to not support `URL`-objects as well.
Most likely the reason that we've don't already support `URL`-objects, in `getDocument`, is that historically `URL` wasn't fully implemented across browsers and our old polyfill wasn't perfect; see https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/URL/URL#browser_compatibility
*Please note:* Because of how the `url` parameter is currently handled, there's actually *some* cases where passing a `URL`-object to `getDocument` already works. That, in my opinion, provides additional motivation for supporting `URL`-objects officially, since it makes the API more consistent.
The following is an attempt to summarize the *current* situation, based on the actual code rather than the JSDocs:
- `getDocument("url string")` works and is documented.[1]
- `getDocument({ url: "url string", })` works and is documented.[1]
- `getDocument(new URL(...))` throws immediately, since no supported parameters are found.
- `getDocument({ url: new URL(...), })` actually works even though it's not documented.[1] Originally, when data was fetched on the worker-thread, this would likely have thrown since `URL` isn't clonable.[2]
- `getDocument({ url: { abc: 123, }, })`, or some similarily meaningless input, will be "accepted" by `getDocument` and then throw a `MissingPDFException` when attempting to fetch the bogus data.
With the changes in this patch, not only is `URL`-objects now officially supported and documented when calling `getDocument`, but we'll also do a much better job at actually validating any URL-data passed to `getDocument` (and instead fail early).
---
[1] In *browsers*, we create a valid URL thus indirectly validating the input. In Node.js environments, on the other hand, no validation is done since obtaining a baseUrl is more difficult (and PDF.js is primarily written for browsers anyway).
[2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Workers_API/Structured_clone_algorithm#supported_types
Given the number of parameters that we now need to parse here, this code is no longer as readable as one would like. Hence this re-factoring, which will improve overall readability and also help with the next patch.
The reasons for making this change are:
- This property is not, nor has it ever been, used anywhere in the PDF.js display-layer.
- Related to the previous point, the format of the `defaultAppearance`-string is such that it'd be difficult to use it as-is in the display-layer anyway.
- It (usually) contains the "raw" appearance-string, from the PDF document, which is neither parsed nor validated and could thus be bogus.
- We now expose a `defaultAppearanceData`-property, which is first of all used in the display-layer and secondly contains actually parsed/validated data.
- In the event that a third-party implementation needs the `defaultAppearance`-string, it could be easily constructed from the recently added `defaultAppearanceData`-property.
All-in-all, I'm thus suggesting that we stop exposing an unused and unnecessary property on all Annotation-instances.
* JS - Handle correctly hierarchy of fields
- it aims to fix#13132;
- annotations can inherit their actions from the parent field;
- there are some fields which act as a container for other fields:
- they can be access through js so need to add them with an empty type (nothing in the spec about that but checked in Acrobat);
- calculation order list (CO) can reference them so need make them through this.getField;
- getArray method must return kids.
- field values are number, string, ... depending of their type but nothing in the spec on how to know what's the type:
- according to the comment for Canonical Format: https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/devnet/pdf/pdfs/PDF32000_2008.pdf#page=461
- it seems that this "type" can be guessed from js action Format (when setting a type in Acrobat DC, the only affected thing is this action).
- util.scand with an empty string returns the current date.
- Actually support *linked* test-cases in the integration-tests (in the same way as the unit-tests).
- Add a new `"type": "other"`-kind to the test-manifest, to support *linked* test-cases in the unit/integration-tests without requiring the PDF document in question to also be a reference-test.
Based on this compatibility information, given that IE 11 is now *explicitly* unsupported, we should no longer need to bundle a `URL` polyfill in any builds: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/URL/URL#browser_compatibility
Note that the caveat listed for older Safari-versions doesn't apply to any code in the PDF.js library, since we never call `new URL(url, undefined)` in the code-base.
Note also that Node.js has a web-compatible `URL` implementation, which according to the "History" section at https://nodejs.org/api/url.html#url_the_whatwg_url_api has been available since Node.js `10.0.0` (according to https://nodejs.org/en/about/releases/ that branch is one month away from being EOL-ed).
Given that *all* data has been loaded on the main-thread, and then transferred to the worker-thread, ever since PR 8617 (almost four years ago) it should no longer be necessary to keep this special-case around.
Given that the `webViewerOpenFileViaURL` helper function is being defined in *all* builds anyway, the current pre-processor usage doesn't really improve readability in my opinion.
Currently `destRef === null`, which will only happen in documents with corrupt destinations, will (unsurprisingly) throw when trying to lookup the pageNumber. To avoid this, we can simply use the same format as in 1a2cdaffc5/web/pdf_link_service.js (L128)
The rotation handling that's currently living in `PDFViewerApplication` is *very* old, and pre-dates the introduction of the viewer components by years.
As can be seen in the `BaseViewer.pagesRotation` setter, we're not actually normalizing the rotation as intended and instead rely on the caller to handle that correctly. This is first of all inconsistent, given how other setters are implemented, and secondly it could also lead to the rotation being set to a value outside of the `[0, 360)`-range.
Finally, for improved consistency the rotation handling in `PageViewport` is updated similarly. Please note that this case, it's *not* changing the pre-existing logic.
This improves and simplifies #13102 in order to make printing of test-cases
like the one in bug 1698414 (where the real page is bigger than the target
page) much better, see incoming screenshots.
The reason why we need to stop setting .style.width / .style.height is to get
the right auto-sizing behavior in both axes. This shouldn't change behavior as
long as the print resolution is >= the CSS resolution, which seems like a
reasonable assumption.
If you try to print with a lower resolution than CSS, then instead of an
stretched canvas, you'd get a centered CSS-quality canvas, which seems
sensible. This could maybe be fixed with some CSS hackery (some combination of
min / max and viewport units perhaps?), but I think it's more trouble than it's
worth.
- implement few positioning properties: position, width, height, anchor;
- implement font element;
- implement fill element (used by font) and its children (linear, radial, ...);
- font property is inherited from ancestor container (see https://www.pdfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/XFA-3_3.pdf#page=43) so let CSS handles that stuff;
- in order to reduce the number of properties to set, only set non default properties and put the default in CSS;
- set a background to some containers to be able to see them (will be removed in a future commit).
The intention, in PR 12493, was that the page we're adding to the browser history should behave as if it were a "regular" internal destination (to properly convey user intent).
Unfortunately, since I didn't consider all the edge-cases correctly, it ended up behaving like a URL-hash instead which obviously wasn't intended. Note that currently this isn't a problem, however it can become an issue (in some cases) with upcoming re-factoring around `PDFHistory` and OpenAction support[1].
---
[1] I've started working on fixing the following TODO, which will require a couple of smaller tweaks here and there: 9d0ce6e79f/web/app.js (L1680-L1681)
In the `getAll`-method, we can have just one *explicit* loop rather than two indirect ones via the old `Object.assign`-call.
Also, changes the `get`-method to be slightly more compact (while keeping the logic intact).
Looking at this now, I cannot understand why we'd need to initialize `this.prefs` with all of the values from `this.defaults`.
Not only does this *indirectly* require one extra loop, via the `Object.assign`-call, but it also means that in GENERIC-builds changes to default-preference values might not be picked-up unless the the existing user-prefs are cleared (if the user had *manually* set prefs previously).
I'm adding these temporary l10n strings, so that I don't have to stare at a bunch of warning messages in the web-console when using the development viewer.
Given that the `enableXfa` parameter must to be passed to the API/Worker, and thus included in the `getDocument` call, it's not necessary to include it when initializing the `PDFViewer`-instance used in the default viewer. (Also, in `AppOptions`, the parameter is clearly marked with `OptionKind.API`.)
Furthermore, we probably don't want to display the fallback bar (in Firefox) for XFA documents when `enableXfa = true` is set.
While it's still not entirely clear if this would've prevented the issue as reported, given that the particular use-case reported apparently no longer applies, this small change really cannot hurt in general *and* it won't effect "regular" viewer builds in any way.
