Petar Petrenko

Neither the author nor Affinity Publisher is to blame. It's our own fault because in 99% of cases authors don't know the entire process of creating books, magazines, etc. They think they know absolutely everything, even which program is best for creating them. They even insist that it should be InDesign because they heard somewhere that it is the "best" for the job. That's why, when we conclude a deal with a client, we need to let him know what we expect from him: complete text that has undergone proofreading; images (if any) should be in JPG or TIF format with 300 dpi and the same size in which they will be placed on the page; color images should be in the RGB color space; the images must not be inside the Word document, but only captions that will tell us where to place them. And what he have to expect from us: get the final material in PDF only; no source code, no fonts, no images, etc.; any further proofreading after the start of work is charged additionally and is done in PDF, not in Word or any other text processor. After this, it should be clearer to the author that he is in charge only of the text and that he should leave it to us to finish our part of the work properly. If nothing else, this should keep potential problems to a minimum.

Editing and correcting the text is the author's responsibility, or the person hired by the author to do that, not the person who does the layout.

You can't trust Microsoft too much. Tommorow they can change something in DOCX code and... a new headache for the third party developers of DOCX export/import filters. RTF is IMO much more reliable. ODT/ODF is another good format that is worth to be a member of a Publisher import filters.

Let's say Publisher has DOCX export filter and you exported the file to send it back to the customer to make additional changes. After that you will have to restart from zero with it because the export is not 1:1 with features. What you really need is Publisher's new feature same as WordsFlow.

Saving to PDF is meaningful only for apps like Adobe Acrobat, PitStop and similar. Not for any other.

Maybe the same ones Word supports: APA, Chicago, Harvard...

I suggested, too, left/right click for fill/stroke color long time ago and I, once again, want to emphasize how important is this as a time (and nerves, too) saver expecially when working with plenty of layers.

It's quite obvious having in mind that Affinity doesn't have Word export filter. If they plan to do it maybe it would be better to make RTF export filter rather than Word's one.

What will happen if you set the filler text to be entered as an editable text? Could Publisher be able to distinguish the real and filler text in that case?

Like we can customize tools and toolbar I would like to have an option to customize the context toolbar. There are some icons I would like to rearrange, like bringing the leading icon next to the font size icon, etc.

Do you want (and do you use) something like WordsFlow from EmSoftware?

@Peter Kahrel if you are the author of "GREP in InDesign" I must say thank you for the great book.

On some earlie Affinity's answers on the topic when they announceed it.

IMO, even if this is a case, the customer still doesn't have permission to do that. The user must download it by himself.

@tzvi20 You can be confused as much as you like, but it is not up to me.

Have a nice trip. AFAIK scripting will appear after v. 4.0 and it is about 2+ years

So, will Affinity have to change "rotating" to :resizing" through out all apps?

Master pages A i B have 6Rx9C grid. If you try to rotate any of them (right click on master page > spread properties > portrait mode) you will see that the grid is still 6Rx9C instead of 9Rx6C. test.afpub

Like MathType?

IMO, it is not only you.

My footnote body has only 2 lines and widow/orphan controls are both checked. In this case footnote must be shown on the next page because there is no room on the previous page. IMO this case must be considered as a bug not as a feature request. Reference marker is shown on the bottom of the left page. I can't show the top of the right page because I made some changes to the text to make room for the footnote after I started this topic. But, the bug must be corrected.

I don't it is so important the top of the right frame. The problem is with the footnote handling. It must be placed on the next page together with the text containing the footnote reference.

I forgot to finish my previous post, sorry. Otherwise, we will have unfinished tools like Tables which is, practically, useless -- no text <=> table, no multipage capability, no tablenotes...

Great update. I'm looking forward using it finally in new projects. Just a suggestion for further updates... Maybe it would be a good idea to inform beta testers what new features you plan for the next upgrade(s) so they can advice if there is a need for some new capabilities or some of them need any changes.

Hi, As you can see from the image, footnotes does not follow orphan and widow rules. InDesign moves the line(s) with footnote reference together with the footnote on the next page. Please, let us decide how many lines we can consider as orphans and widows -- not only 2.