wrong mask selection in QR code about postscriptbarcode HOT 3 CLOSED

If you want to put in the work to understand where my scores differ from your then I'm happy to review. If there's a bug implementing my intent then I'll fix it.

The standard does things that aren't necessarily conducive to producing a symbol that is free from undesirable graphical artefacts so I make no attempt to adhere rigidly to it for such an ungraded parameter.

It is better to put the effort into attempting to clarify and improve the ISO standard, which is currently open for revision.

from postscriptbarcode.

You're right, it's not an optimal solution what the standard does. I often thought that I should stop doing it according to the standard and start doing what's best to prevent undesirable code portions.

I didn't know it's open currently. Good to know.

But, from time to time I'm comparing my solution to yours and... I found a bug in mine. But I can't explain the mask differences... maybe I've got another bug? But I found an other generator that selects the same mask like mine... so... I'm confused.

I don't know if it's only the order (not setting format information before calculating penalties). But when I calculate the penalties for a 1/H/alphanumeric code with content WMD8Q36 ... I have (1143, 1133, 1158, 1096, 1116, 1114, 1105, 1096) ... I don't know your values, but since you took another mask, they must be different (my PS isn't that good anymore... I can't simply read it anymore).

Oh and... I'm using the 2006 standard... is it possible that they changed something?

from postscriptbarcode.

my PS isn't that good anymore...

Placing a strategic /variable == variable == at points in the code should be sufficient to emit the various mask score components for comparison.

Oh and... I'm using the 2006 standard... is it possible that they changed something?

I do not believe so.

from postscriptbarcode.