MikeW

The Jump setting also acts the same in 1.10.x, too. Tried new documents made in 1.10.x and 2.3 APub as well with same result.

Just purchase an imposition software. If you need to impose, they handle imposition best.

The 2024 edition of QXP added such a thing. The various classifications work--at least for fonts wherein the metadata in a font is properly encoded (like most font managers). But do fail to sort/classify fonts where the Panose information is set improperly.

This took a couple minutes to build the styles for, with the code block pasted using RTF and using a paragraph style using a fill decoration--a one-click paragraph formatting. Had to copy your fish image, it's pretty cool looking!

Unless you are going to print AND bind this yourself, you do not need to worry about signatures. Any print service that either has an in-house bindery operation or works with a bindery will also want to do the imposition themselves. You need to only find any print service that does these smaller-sized print jobs. Do note that in general, small-run jobs are, can be, costly. Once you find such a service, they will provide you with specifications as to the single page (non-spread) pdf they require.

But do note there is currently no means of mapping styles, alarms InDesign. Which I think you were inquiring about.

Just as a visual representation for this divergent but relevant discussion... The image below, from the font editor I mainly use, shows the letter H and some relevant metrics as laid out in my font. The colored rectangles show the relative leading when "Default" is used as installed by the three applications. Remember, the ID/APub rectangles are approximate... QXP, back in its beginning, tried to emulate as much as possible from the world of physical letters/sorts. Quaint? Maybe. But one can map, directly, its representation, the parts of the font's metrics, to the surface of a letter without ambiguity. Nothing is "made up," for better or worse.

No, that APub accidentally arrives at your findings for some fonts doesn't mean it works for others. What would you say the leading in APub should be for: And do note this font is set for using typo metrics. Edits. Em is 2048 for the above. Yes your math does demonstrate how APub sets default leading. But does that make it correct?

OK. The [No Style] is set to Auto. Leading for this paragraph style is 100%, Leading 0, Leading (Override) 0pt. If I create a new text style and leave it set to Based on: [No Style], the leading for the new paragraph says in the Character section of the paragraph style Edit dialog, Position and Transform section, Leading override: 0pt. The Spacing section reports, Leading: Default. It is this last setting I'm referring to.

No, Apub doesn't use a font's metrics when using Default. The Zapfino example should show that. Other fonts also demonstrate this but not so exaggerated as Zapfino. I wrote "about 100%" because i,ve seen 100.05% that if one calculates the metrics should have been higher.

And now to satisfy my desire to complete my thoughts with more esoteric ramblings and comparisons... Both InDesign and QuarkXPress have a means to change what they consider Default/Auto leading. It's half buried in ID as regarding a global, going forward change. In QXP this option is in its Preferences. QXP calls the Option "Auto" leading. There are differences to how ID/QXP handle type in comparison to APub (and a difference or two between each other). Whereas the as-installed APub uses roughly 100% leading, both ID/QXP use 120% (as Does MS Word et al). But whatever each of these applications have as their default leading can be set for all future documents. This is a good thing. There are differences, though. Perhaps sometimes important (to me) differences or distinctions. I didn't do extensive tests in ID and APub but did in QXP. "Extensive" here meaning until my brain got tired. ID will always, it appears, use 120% default leading (or whatever one sets the default to) no matter what. APub uses roughly 100% leading as its default (or whatever one sets the default to) no matter what. In QXP there is a difference. In QXP, the as-installed 20% additional leading only applies when the font's metrics for line spacing/leading are at or below 120% of font size. Once a font's metrics are above 120%, QXP uses the font metrics to set default/auto leading. This difference between the three applications is easy to see comparing a couple paragraphs of the same text inside the same width text frames using the Zapfino font. The tightest line spacing at ~100% is in APub, a bit looser at 120% in ID and using the font's metrics in QXP being the loosest (but as designed in the font) and works out to ~16.75pts leading, or ~140%. APub, ID, QXP:

No worries, especially on the language differences! Threads like this one, hopefully after the question is answered, often end up in the technical and/or esoteric nature of, in this case, typesetting. I'm glad your inquiry's answers satisfied your needs to understand the issue.

I would recommend an imposition application, if that's what you are wanting to do. One opens pdfs exported from any application, choses the type of imposition, how many pages in a signature if needed/wanted, etc., etc. Once the imposition satisfies one's needs, an imposed pdf is generated and one does the printing, trimming (if bleed is required). The linked discussion begins where we were recommending imposition software for both Windows and Macs. Oh, btw, in the olden days, there were XTensions for QXP that did impositions inside of QXP via building a new file for the imposed version. Quark eventually bought that company and that XT (and the others that company made) were then available to QXP users (sometimes free when upgrading, fee-based if not upgrading). But really, there has always been relatively inexpensive imposition applications and there was less and less desire/need to supply the XTs, which often needed updated by Quark for the new versions.

There are templates you can find on the internet made for InDesign that come in .idml format. Those can be opened in Affinity Publisher. It takes some looking. And you may find, I think on the indesignsecrets website, the templates Adobe use to supply with InDesign. Those all are, I believe, .idml format. Among them are long and short documents.

I agree, Mike. That said, I'm still at a loss as to why there are two different containers for images.