MikeW

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.

An application is defining what Default leading means. Or, rather, what default means in relation to the application's type engine. Obviously, this is different than physical type for which there wasn't a physical means of reducing leading beyond what the cutters used. Applications can either use the font's leading as-designed, or not, as the programmer's desire. So much different than days of old where one simply had to accept how loose their sorts fit together or find new sorts that could fit closer together when assembled into lines of type, i.e., line spacing / leading as a default--one could always add the physical leading (strips of lead of different thickness) to make lines of type further apart. Computers make this so much faster and easier. A goal of a font designer, at least ones I know, desire for their typeface to look good to them on-screen, but also on the printed page. However, like with most things, there are technical issues, or technical limitations, for which the font designer has to work within. I'm pretty certain Hermann Zapf wouldn't like the default Affinity Publisher uses for you Zapfino sample. It should be more open. At least that's how he designed it. That said, in practice I suspect he would opt to set the font tighter than the in-built leading, shown here: That in-built as-designed spacing for the top and bottom font metrics is there to avoid clashes between descenders and ascenders. An example: As you can see, the descending 'g' and ascending 'f' characters would clash if there was much less default leading. Which, if done on purpose for effect, is fine. Application designers simply ought to use font metrics to lay down the type. But, like I said before, there ought to be a preference to set when the font designer messes up. In the good bad old days, I have seen fonts that partially overlaid each successive line because the designer forgot to put proper values in. BTW, that part of the letter sort in your image is called the Shoulder.

Personally, I think the term Default should mean as the font Designer has made the font and have a means in preferences to set a percentage value for when, like in older fonts, there are missing values or would otherwise be lower than the set percentage value.

It's a great application. Been using it for years.

I believe Serif, Patrick in particular, has one of the best track records regarding communication and customer engagement. I don't write the above as a fanboy. There are several reasons why I generally don't use Affinity applications for my daily work. Patrick, Serif, knows those reasons. Frankly, I don't know why they tolerate my presence sometimes 😉

https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/10/23/1082189/data-poisoning-artists-fight-generative-ai Also worth mentioning.

Perhaps this:

There is an existing request:

If you are asking about how far of an offset printer's mark are offset (versus the bleed amount) as shown below, there isn't an option in Affinity applications for the same adjustment.

Ah. I only tried pasting into an existing document. Sorry. Should have read the thread better.

Works with AD 1.10.6 using Windows. I don't have v.2 to look at. Also pastes properly into the current version of VectorStyler.

Imposition software can, like in this APub example, have the rows/columns set individually. Still, though, because Affinity applications create "extra" page width/height beyond the stroke, there will be the minutest of gap---which wouldn't matter in real life and produces the exact size of imposed sheet (when rows/columns are manually set) as an example from ID (which always/almost always produces an undersized sheet, at least when using non point-based integers and requires zero intervention. Because of the under-sized ID pdf, my imposition software rounds up and still produces a small gap--which can disappear depending on the zoom level. What the ID-produced pdf won't do, however, is trigger an automated rejection. My opinion is automated pdf checking ought to report any such discrepancy, the size of the discrepancy, and let the customer decide on whether to proceed or not. KDP and others are not printing labels nor business cards (afaik). They don't print 10-up where such discrepancies can accumulate into perhaps meaningful amounts. Moo & Vista are a print services that do print such things as ganged-up business cards and other smaller documents on larger sheets. I've sent many business cards and postcard-sized jobs to each of them. Some of which were done in AD. Same kind of rejection on the first submission at Moo. I changed the page size based upon whole points and still got a warning that I was allowed to bypass (height was 0.08" taller, width was exact). I get no such warnings from other applications. If Serif is rounding up using the pdf routine, the simple thing would be to stop if that produces + sizes. If it is the pdf routine does this automatically, there isn't much Serif can do short of always altering the code each time there is an update to the library.

The thread changed from being able to format dates in APub to custom formatting in Excel not being transferred into APub during a data merge. But the answer is the same--there is no option that I understand for calculated future dates (no spreadsheet-like calculations at all). Without creating a sample, I don't know if an Excel sheet using such calculations would come in intact, either.

Correct as regards a merge. If one has data where the whole sheet is displayed, I believe individually formatted words in a cell display properly. Just not in regards to APub's current merge capabilities.

But if you meant inside APub? No cells can be calculated.

Of course. Have you tried using a search engine? https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dexcel%2Bfuture%2Bdates%26sourceid%3Dchrome%26ie%3DUTF-8

Just for fun, here are screenshots from other applications... InDesign... The next two were copied/pasted (which doesn't seem to hold the format in APub either)... Serif PagePlus... Viva Designer:

Multiply mode should give you the same visual indication and pdf result, too.

QXP: