MikeW

Try opening the file in the free InkScape. It may open it properly and if so, export as an SVG (same applies if you have Illustrator). Issues are usually related to EPS files cannot have transparency or transparency effects (like drop shadows, etc.) or meshes (both coloring and warping). As mentioned, an embedded AI file obviates the EPS file format limitations if an EPS also contains the AI portion. Remove the AI embedded portion of the file and AI will open such an EPS pretty much exactly like AD does. Mike

Do note that neither Acrobat nor the other methods afaik account for creep.

May I PM you a link to a Q2018 file?

Er, no I haven't. My wife claims she has heard me use a very different expression, though. It is easily written WTF. Speaking of my wife. She has only used a layout application once before (PagePlus years ago). So I asked her to make an 8-page family newsletter from a design that I made an printed off. I didn't give her any assets. For the type, I had her use my type rule to figure out size. Assets (shapes mainly) needed to get created in-application. It got done in 3 layout applications. Her and APub didn't get along too well.

Doesn't bother me. My imposition software (any I have used) overrides the PDF values. Heck, I could care less if marks are in a PDF for that matter. Those also get dismissed and the impo software uses its own. The few times I have gotten imposed PDFs (or partially imposed, i.e., some double pages) and don't have time to deal with the client, I split the pages using pdfToolbox.

I would add that clearing paragraph and/or character styles has been a hit or miss for me as to whether it actually happens or not. Heck, creating bullet lists has been difficult for me at times. Sometimes certain properties happen right off, sometimes I have to make the same settings more than once. Just having those check boxes in p.styles & c.styles have 3 states is weird. My list is quite a bit longer...but also includes those you mention. I still have a few spare brain cells to learn a new application and how it operates. I'm more or less OK with deviating from the standard layout applications. But any thing that impedes my productivity, whether it be missing features that add too much time or dumb work-arounds, or if included features add too much time, or whatever oddity that consumes time is bad for me. I only make money if I can use an application that can (more or less) compete time-wise with the others. Too much time loss affects the revenue that me & my family depend upon year after year.

Serif has their own vision of how things are to be done, and to a good degree what those things are. Currently some of those decisions are at odds with an efficient work-flow. As regards functionality, in none of the Affinity applications are swatches implemented well and certainly not in APub, for instance. While we may get master page "primary text frames," they are not yet implemented and simply have to be. Text styles, the very heart of a layout application have had a minor change in APub, but still are either buggy or not implemented well. I have laid out 3 of the same books in Q & APub. Simple books from "plain" novels to something slightly less than a fully-illustrated novel. I have done these this way, do one completely in Q using the source file I was handed, then do the same book in APub using the same source. Because of APub not handling tagged text, the ones in APub were using the same Word source that I exported the tagged text from for the Q version. They were frustrating to do in APub, from styles to layout. For instance as regards layout, at the proofing stage, I received word from the publisher that they wanted a margin change. Try that in APub on a book at the proof stage. It can certainly be done, but it isn't as quick and assured. There are other, what I call core functionality, things that could also change...but they are likely not going to. However, Affinity applications are Serif's vision. Not mine. Serif will do what they believe is best. I agree with that. And, like AD, I will continue to financially support Serif. As a financial stake-holder, I believe I have the right to speak my mind about work-flow and functionality issues. If it makes ya feel better, I also point out what I think is well and good both here on the forum and elsewhere. Mike

Which version of Q?

Aside from a couple of things that would be nice in Q, what APub lacks far out weighs those things for serious production work. At least for what I create. Every brand of layout application will have items others do not. But it are the core things that makes the difference between productivity and...Well, that's a nice feature. APub lacks too many core features and the work-flow things that Q and ID have at this point in time.

I did and showed the result.

ID can also do this using the SplitStory script that ships with it or any number of scripts available for free (that are a bit more featured).

I assume your "rulers" = "rules" It's always worked in Q since the feature was available. It's just that for rules to always appear at column tops (and perhaps for spans), one needs to use discrete offset values instead of the default percentages.

One of my first posts lambasted this issue. I believe that DPI in document set up should only affect raster effects. This is especially true of a layout application.

That is a pretty silly assumption. What would actually happen is that Serif would need to hire programmers, etc., in order to support a third OS. Then the future updating is as in-sync as the Mac/Windows versions are now. Serif needs more application programmers now just to support the two OSs in a timely manner. They have had long-standing job offers out in the wild and have a difficult time getting qualified people at their location and/or who are willing to relocate. Adding a third OS at this time would compound that difficulty. And all that besides the potential of not recouping the costs to do so via a non crowd-funded model. And I suspect there are other hurdles to overcome before any Linux solution would be viable. I could care less which way Serif decides to go. If Serif decides a permanent No to a Linux option, I suspect these threads will continue. You (meaning whomever is calling for Linux to be supported) could always buy a Windows or a Mac box. Use a switch to make you keyboard/monitor/pointing device active for whichever box needs to be used. It's not the worse solution and if Affinity applications would be valuable to your work, it is one that is possible now without too much disruption in a work-flow.

Gosh, I hate using my phone and trying to edit a response sometimes! I'll correct it, but yes, I had meant ID there...Thanks.