Applying reader extensions removes form script?

Question

Situation:

I'm working with Adobe Livecycle ES2 and Flex In our project we show a pdf form inside a flex form with a flex Iframe, so we use the adobe form bridge to communicate between flex and Pdf.

Now the problem: I have a service on livecycle with 2 routes, the first route fills a form with data, appy encryption and the reader extensions so the user can view and compile the empty fields. The second route makes the same as route 1 but i want to display the form in read only mode, so the user cannot edit anything.

I modified the reader extensions operation to do this, leaving checked the Digital Signature only. (the user can see the form and sign).

The first route works perfectly. The second route not...

in the second case the form bridge doesnt work, neither the scripts. It's like livecycle removed all the javascript inside the form.

I'm struck..

Answer 1

As far as I know, the application of the Reader Extension doesn't interact with fields and scripts inside a form. So I can assure you that the application of the RE has nothing to do with the described effects.

The Reader Extensions are used to unlock some of the form features even if the final user has Acrobat Reader. In other words, Reader Extensions are similar to an Acrobat Pro License bound to a single form. These Features are:

• Local Save (Save the form with data on your computer);
• Comment (Add comment feature; from Acrobat X this feature is already unlocked in Adobe Reader);
• Sign (Sign the document with a digital signature);
• Submit (Submit your form with data through the web)
• Barcode (Barcode & QR code support)

From what you described, it seems that your process converts your PDF form in a PDF/A file. The PDF/A is a particular archive format that is used for long term document storage. The ISO requirements specifically prevent this kind of document from having scripts or fillable fields. A large number of LC developers uses that kind of conversion as a simple way to lock all interactive fields. I personally consider that a misuse of a feature specifically designed for another purpose.