Ramon56

I tried fiddling with the different field types, but if I get the first section correct, the following ones get the numbers wrong. I'll let it go for now and simply generate the TOC, then reset the section number again. I have to deliver the book (it's already on pre-sale) and cannot dedicate more time to it. Thanks for your help!

All sections are "Continue page numbering", except this one, where the page number needs to start with "5". But in order to achieve that, I need to set the section number to "4", as can be seen from the previous screenshot. However, if I do so, then it scrambles the TOC and we get back to the original problem.

However, I now have a new issue: The TOC generates fine, but the page numbers in the footer are now wrong (page 5 which is the beginning of the chapter becomes page 6! It looks as if the page footers are set at spread level, and not page level! So when you set the section page start at 5, it considers that the LEFT page of the spread is #5, and not the page where the section has been made! Any ideas on how to fix this?

Ok, got it, @Old Bruce What was confusing me was that the footer stated Page #5. Thanks for your help! (You too, @MikeTO!)

Josh, I suspect that you have selected "Justify All" instead of "Justify Left". Cheers.

Hello, Mike. Thanks for your assistance. The test file that you sent seems to work OK. I attach an extract of the book, basically deleting all the text except one paragraph and two chapter headers. This issue has me really mystified. Cheers. Sample.afpub

I am using Publisher 2.30. On creating a book, I have created a template for book pages, and a special template for the first page of a chapter, which allows me to include the chapter headers. The chapter header goes in one layer, and the text in a different one. Left pages include the book title and page number in the footer, right pages have my name and page number in the footer. Nothing specially fancy. Everything works perfectly, and when I generate the Table of Contents, it does indeed include the chapter titles, BUT unfortunately it indicates the number of the LEFT (even) page, even though the chapter starts in an RIGHT (odd) page. I am not sure whether this is a bug or something has escaped me. The chapter header layer is on the RIGHT (odd) page, but the TOC still indicates that it is on the left page. I have tried moving around the layers of the templates, but to no avail. In the screenshot below you can see the page layout. The "Prefacio" (Preface) chapter is on page 5 (odd page), but the TOC states that it is on page 4 (previous even page). The left side of the screenshot shows part of the TOC, and you will notice that ALL are even pages. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

This was a featur that existed in PagePlus and was very handy because it took ages to update some text (even a typo) in a long document (I have books of 600 pages). It allows to create separate files for the different chapters, and combine them into a single PDF. I have not checked how they update the index, but will try to find out as soon as I start playing with it. And yes, it's a pity that it does not have ePub export yet.

Did the same test, using a Word document with quite a few footnotes. Import was flawless. I have not tested more advanced footnote aspects, but this test shows that at least it covers the minimum that I expected when I purchased V1, so I am happy. I have taken the reduced price offer and will now explore other capabilities. For the moment I am happy, as this was my biggest stumbling block; hopefully I will be pleasantly surprised.

Well, it seems that the long, long wait is over. I have not checked it yet, but even a basic functionality will remove quite a few grey hairs. I have not seen anything about Word import of footnotes and endnotes, so I'll have to test that out. On the other hand, I have seen a very nice feature that PagePlus had and was missing, which is the combination of different Publisher documents as chapters into a single book. This is great, I can assure you, specially when you have books with hundreds of pages!

Pulisher is "supposed" to be BETTER than word processors for publishing... yet it has less publishing capabilities than those.

Don't count on it. In any case, I find it interesting that you combined the html files in Calibre. I was not aware thta was possible. Need to test that.

I have far better things to do than evaluating beta software. You may have all the time in the world, but I certainly don't. 10 days for evaluation is also far too short, and it takes also quite a lot of time to master a complex program, even assuming that you can dedicate a lot of time to it (which I couldn't). By the time I realized that this feature was missing, it was too late for the money-back (which I certainly would have requested). Now, the statement that the marketing material lists all functions is plain nonsense. Does it tell that you can underline, use italics or bold? That you can use different fonts? That you can indent paragraphs or space different lines? No, it doesn't, yet those capabilities are there. When people buy such a program, they consider that certain things are so fundamental that they take them for granted. I certainly did NOT expect that AP would NOT have such a basic feature as footnotes and endnotes, which are included in simple word processors such as MS Word, OpenOffice, LibreOffice, or even WPS Writer. Why would I buy AP if it has LESS features than a word processor? So yes, I feel absolutely cheated.

True, but PagePlus had ESSENTIAL features (such as footnotes/endnotes) and combination of different files that AP STILL does not have! (Can you imagine a motorcycle without a brake?) Same here. BUT I am going to make certain before paying a dime that it has the features that I need (including of course footnotes/endnotes). I won't be cheated a second time.

I personally do not have much hope.... after 4 years, we still do not have footnotes.

Don't hold your breath. Serif has already disappointed me enough.

This is fine, but the problem is a different one: I have also experienced this issue. It's no good that you can merge different documents if afterwards Publisher crashes because the resulting file is so big that it cannot handle it... PagePlus had also this issue, but the "book" feature did not physically merge the files into a big file, it was only used to perform the final publication, and that worked like a breeze... Well, I hope it does not take four years (and counting) before it is added, like footnotes.

The predecessor of Affinity Publisher (PagePlus) had the capability to build "books" by including/merging several files. This was a nice workaround to the fact that it took ages to process big files. If Publisher cannot handle a whole book, then they should consider adding this PagePlus feature.

When i use my Kindle, Footnotes are handled as a pop-up. End notes are at the end of teh ebook.

Fully agree! Look at what Will said. In any case, the functionality that is missing is exactly what all users have been screaming for over the past years (not only ePub, but for example footnotes/endnotes). If you provide similar functionality and drop the "old " version, you are "replacing" it, like it or not, even if it is not exactly the same. And then you should have the main features (not the same code!). You can add new features and drop unused or unnecessary ones. And BTW, you only inherit the bloat and bugs only if you reuse the code, but that is NOT what we are talking about - we are talking about features, not reuse of code! For your information, I have over 40 years of experience in software development (I started with punch cards!). I have developed desktop software, websites, corporate systems and even airborne software operating systems for fighter aircraft. I have also chaired two international software standardization committees, so I need to take no lessons from anybody. Having stated that, and having also developed consumer software, when you drop a product and replace (YES, replace) it by something oriented to the same purpose, the users expect something similar or better. You can develop it from scratch (no objection to that), but you should take care that you include the features that your users value. The very first thing that we did when we developed consumer software is ask the users what features they considered essential/valuable, and made sure that those were included. This is not discrediting anyone's work - but ignoring the users and what they require is simply sloppy and is unlikely to increasy user satisfaction. Anyone with a minimum of knowlege in marketing will tell you that user satisfaction is key to the success of a product. It is evident that you are NOT a software designer, because otherwise you would know that the backwards compatibility of old files is not necessarily maintained even over different versions of a same software. Plenty of examples abound. And you are insisting on code, as if code portability and code reuse was the only solution when you want to create a new product or even a new product version. Let me tell you something: I completely redesigned with my team a major application that had been initially developed in Powerbuilder to C++. Significant architectural changes had to be done, and except some very few algorithms, NOTHING was reused (zero code ported). Yet it was marketed as the new "modern" version of the SAME product! (and yes, we created it from scratch.) Backward compatibility? None. We had a way of migrating the old data (by means of a conversion program), but there was no way to run the old files/databases, nor get back to the old format. It simply made no sense to maintain backward compatibility, and still it was a new version of the same application!

That was also my understanding.

Agreed. But PagePlus did have a limited capability to do this. On one side, you had the PagePlus documents, and then you had the PagePlus books (see example from one of my books below). They were two different types of files. The PagePlus document would be equivalent to the S1000D data module, the Pageplus book would be the S1000D publication module. They need not to be mixed, as Scriverner does, but it's much easier to implement. This PagePlus feature would probably not be sufficient to handle the S1000D documents, but it certainly would cover the Scrivener equivalent. You could improve it by "linking" the individual files to the Publisher sections.

I regret to tell you that I have an university degree in Computer Sciences, and have developed desktop software, websites, corporate applications and even airborne software, so I cannot be included in the "some users" group that you mention. I am perfectly aware about what software development is, how much it costs and how long it takes, as I have been doing that for almost 40 years. (I started my CS studies with punch cards!) I have also chaired two international software standardization committees, so I do not need to take lessons from anybody on this subject. And yes, it's not just "cut and paste", most of the time you have to develop things from scratch, often even for upgrades. However, when you develop a new product that is supposed to replace an older one, you DO include in the first development all the important features of the old product. What it does not make sense is that you provide a new product that does less than the old one. If that is so, why should I buy the new one? If you have an XXX phone, would you buy a phone taunted by the manufacturer as "the new XXX" if you find out for example that it cannot play music, which your old XXX can do? Had I know that Publisher had not included some critical features that I did have with PagePlus, then I would not have bought it in the first place. When I found out that it didn't, I still hoped that they would include them in some of the minor versions. It has however been years, and those features are still not there.

Yes, I am aware of them, but ultimately these are proprietary standards developed by a single company. S1000D is an international specification which is publicly available and is developed jointly by three standarization organisations representing both US and European industries that employ together almost 3.000.000 people. It is therefore a powerhouse amongst standards. Having used Scrivener myself, I must fully agree. But I like a lot its modular capability, in order to manage separate files. PagePlus had also that capability, though more limited than Scrivener. If Publisher can add the main features of Scrivener, such as modular use, ePub export, etc, it would really become the standard for those tasks.

I have used Scrivener myself, and agree that Serif would have a good opportunity in grabbing the market for indie authors and small publishers. However, Scrivener has a couple of things that Publisher does not have, which is surprising because its predecessor (Pageplus) had them: Export to RTF and ePub Modular (combination of several files such as separate chapters and viewing/publishing them as a single book) Footnotes/Endnotes Internal cross-linking