Bug 965738
| Summary: | PDF "ExtendedForm Authenticator" word incorrectly generated | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [JBoss] JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 6 | Reporter: | claudio |
| Component: | Documentation | Assignee: | Scott Mumford <smumford> |
| Status: | CLOSED CANTFIX | QA Contact: | Russell Dickenson <rdickens> |
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | 6.1.0 | CC: | jcacek, smumford, twells |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Documentation, EasyFix, Triaged |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2014-02-17 02:51:57 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
claudio
2013-05-21 15:57:29 UTC
I downloaded the PDF from the provided link and was able to search for "ExtendedFormAuthenticator" successfully (found on page 127, as advised). It's possible a rebuild of the document has corrected this issue. Referring to QA for confirmation. Verification failed for PDF from the documentation-devel. PDF viewer integrated in Google Chrome searches correctly for "ExtendedFormAuthenticator", but Adobe Reader (v.9) requires "ExtendedForm Authenticator". I don't know from where the problem comes, but there is at least one problem in the PDF. The "qdf --check" prints: WARNING: JBoss_Enterprise_Application_Platform-6.1-Security_Guide-en-US.pdf (object 1677 0, file position 938226): expected endobj Confirmed that the error still presents with Acroread 9.5.5. Unfortunately this is not a bug that the documentation team can correct. It is arising from something in the build tool used to create the various documentation formats. Raising a bug against Publican to see if this is correctable. Unfortunately, checking to see if this presents with other terms is not feasible (as it would mean manually checking at least every Java term across the entire documentation suite against the PDF). Bug 1065810 raised to query this with Publican team. |