pfbt

Worked a treat.  Thank you.

Many thanks to MikeTO.  Mike, I'll look again at content scaling.
Thanks too, to Hangman for the very full explanation.

Thanks Dan C.  Late night here now, so I'll organise recording, etc. tomorrow for you.

I love Publisher for what it does do, but it's been a major disappointment that, to date, it's not lived up to the promise of being a replacement for InDesign. I think we can truthfully say it was a reasonable expectation.
Via Twitter, I reminded Serif that communication is everything. Companies like Apple might be able to get away with saying nothing about what they're developing because we know that at least twice a year they deliver something.
Right now, there seems to be no hint of whether Serif is even working on Publisher. Their lack of communication on topics like footnotes might have been excusable for, say, a year. But more than 4 years down the track, they're saying nothing. Very poor form and does nothing to engender ongoing trust in the company.
I'd  like to see them concentrate less on all the fancy integration between Designer, Photo, & Publisher for a time while they simply get in the functionality that we've been pleading for.
Meanwhile, I will keep using Publisher for documents that don't require footnotes, etc. However, for documents/books requiring footnotes, endnotes, cross-referencing it's Mellel (which is truly fantastic with those features).

Agreed. How is it relevant?  I suppose we can give it some in this sense: it highlights what we already know – that what Publisher does well it does spectacularly well. And, it highlights the point I made earlier about the concentration on magazine-type production.
However, the number of people calling for footnotes/endnotes (and better cross referencing, in my case) ... and the number of years they've been doing so ... should be sending a clear message to Affinity. People are desperate to dump InDesign and QuarkXpress, but the lag with introducing basic, essential DTP features is a major issue.
Further down this topic's timeline there is mention that Publisher is maybe not the best for academic publishing. Agreed. If I were to do an academic article/book, I would use Mellel as it's ideally suited to that purpose and integrates wonderfully with Bookends for reference management. However, one could do academic publishing in InDesign or QuarkXpress. Now, Affinity came on the scene with a clear indication – albeit implicitly to a large extent – of taking on Adobe. So many of us are sick of Adobe's price gouging and ridiculous subscription system that gives you "value" by forcing you to pay for a pile of stuff you don't need (in many cases).  I only use Illustrator (and will dump that when Affinity provides calligraphic pens) and InDesign; but to subscribe to both those would be as expensive (nearly) as getting the whole thing. Given the gauntlet that Affinity has thrown down, you might expect that Publisher would provide the essential, basic tools that InDesign has, for example.
Moreover, if people were able to effectively use Publisher for academic writing, there is a HUGE market out there, especially given the very sensible pricing.
There is also the potential for disaffection of existing customers having to wait too long for what, in my opinion, they consider to be fundamental tools in the app. Recently, I found myself doing training documents in Publisher because it's so much nicer to use, generally, than Quark or InDesign. BUT, I need footnotes, so I've been wondering whether to just give up on Publisher and use Mellel (more laborious and much fiddlier with placing images, but it has all the essential tools).
Affinity, take note: I'd quite happily pay twice the price to have footnotes/endnotes, and fully-functional cross referencing. (And calligraphic pens in Designer.). 
Just don't EVER go to subscription model though.

Looking through this topic, we can see that people have been begging for footnotes and endnotes for 3 years now. I absolutely love Publisher, but like many people cannot abandon InDesign or QuarkXpress until Serif provides really basic, essential features for desktop publishing. It seems there is a lot of concentration on magazine-y stuff with lots of clever Designer & Photo integration, BUT that's not nearly as important to many of us as essential DTP features like footnotes. 
Cross-referencing could use a serious boost too. I often want to refer to an example by number. Sometimes that number will change if I add in a new, preceding example. In Quark, I can update the cross-reference to that example. In Publisher I can't even (as far as I can see) cross-reference specific text – though I can link to an anchor, but that's not the same nor as useful for my purposes.
It's been a long, long, long time Serif. We love the program but you're making it too hard to complete the transition from InDesign/QuarkXpress.  You're at risk of losing your market edge with this really slow response to basic, essential DTP features. Even the $80 Mellel app that I wrote my PhD in has had such features as long as I've known it (going back to 2005). 
Drop the glitzy graphics stuff (which I bet of lot of us might not be using) for a while, and quickly catch up with the features your dedicated, but exasperated, customers are asking for.

Agreed. How is it relevant?  I suppose we can give it some in this sense: it highlights what we already know – that what Publisher does well it does spectacularly well. And, it highlights the point I made earlier about the concentration on magazine-type production.
However, the number of people calling for footnotes/endnotes (and better cross referencing, in my case) ... and the number of years they've been doing so ... should be sending a clear message to Affinity. People are desperate to dump InDesign and QuarkXpress, but the lag with introducing basic, essential DTP features is a major issue.
Further down this topic's timeline there is mention that Publisher is maybe not the best for academic publishing. Agreed. If I were to do an academic article/book, I would use Mellel as it's ideally suited to that purpose and integrates wonderfully with Bookends for reference management. However, one could do academic publishing in InDesign or QuarkXpress. Now, Affinity came on the scene with a clear indication – albeit implicitly to a large extent – of taking on Adobe. So many of us are sick of Adobe's price gouging and ridiculous subscription system that gives you "value" by forcing you to pay for a pile of stuff you don't need (in many cases).  I only use Illustrator (and will dump that when Affinity provides calligraphic pens) and InDesign; but to subscribe to both those would be as expensive (nearly) as getting the whole thing. Given the gauntlet that Affinity has thrown down, you might expect that Publisher would provide the essential, basic tools that InDesign has, for example.
Moreover, if people were able to effectively use Publisher for academic writing, there is a HUGE market out there, especially given the very sensible pricing.
There is also the potential for disaffection of existing customers having to wait too long for what, in my opinion, they consider to be fundamental tools in the app. Recently, I found myself doing training documents in Publisher because it's so much nicer to use, generally, than Quark or InDesign. BUT, I need footnotes, so I've been wondering whether to just give up on Publisher and use Mellel (more laborious and much fiddlier with placing images, but it has all the essential tools).
Affinity, take note: I'd quite happily pay twice the price to have footnotes/endnotes, and fully-functional cross referencing. (And calligraphic pens in Designer.). 
Just don't EVER go to subscription model though.

Looking through this topic, we can see that people have been begging for footnotes and endnotes for 3 years now. I absolutely love Publisher, but like many people cannot abandon InDesign or QuarkXpress until Serif provides really basic, essential features for desktop publishing. It seems there is a lot of concentration on magazine-y stuff with lots of clever Designer & Photo integration, BUT that's not nearly as important to many of us as essential DTP features like footnotes. 
Cross-referencing could use a serious boost too. I often want to refer to an example by number. Sometimes that number will change if I add in a new, preceding example. In Quark, I can update the cross-reference to that example. In Publisher I can't even (as far as I can see) cross-reference specific text – though I can link to an anchor, but that's not the same nor as useful for my purposes.
It's been a long, long, long time Serif. We love the program but you're making it too hard to complete the transition from InDesign/QuarkXpress.  You're at risk of losing your market edge with this really slow response to basic, essential DTP features. Even the $80 Mellel app that I wrote my PhD in has had such features as long as I've known it (going back to 2005). 
Drop the glitzy graphics stuff (which I bet of lot of us might not be using) for a while, and quickly catch up with the features your dedicated, but exasperated, customers are asking for.

Looking through this topic, we can see that people have been begging for footnotes and endnotes for 3 years now. I absolutely love Publisher, but like many people cannot abandon InDesign or QuarkXpress until Serif provides really basic, essential features for desktop publishing. It seems there is a lot of concentration on magazine-y stuff with lots of clever Designer & Photo integration, BUT that's not nearly as important to many of us as essential DTP features like footnotes. 
Cross-referencing could use a serious boost too. I often want to refer to an example by number. Sometimes that number will change if I add in a new, preceding example. In Quark, I can update the cross-reference to that example. In Publisher I can't even (as far as I can see) cross-reference specific text – though I can link to an anchor, but that's not the same nor as useful for my purposes.
It's been a long, long, long time Serif. We love the program but you're making it too hard to complete the transition from InDesign/QuarkXpress.  You're at risk of losing your market edge with this really slow response to basic, essential DTP features. Even the $80 Mellel app that I wrote my PhD in has had such features as long as I've known it (going back to 2005). 
Drop the glitzy graphics stuff (which I bet of lot of us might not be using) for a while, and quickly catch up with the features your dedicated, but exasperated, customers are asking for.

First, a direct link to the actual article: https://affinityspotlight.com/article/interview-with-emily-goater-affinity-publisher-product-expert/
There is no mention of footnotes at all.
How is this relevant to this discussion?

I completely agree with you (I'm coming from Quark).

Footnotes are essential for legal publishing as well. Nearly every sentences gets a footnote.

The point is: we need foot- and endnotes! As soon as possible. Please Affinity...

The last several posts have pointed out a difference between English versus German, but I really don't think this is a language issue. As a native English speaker myself, it seems I have seen footnotes far more often than endnotes in English books. I suppose that depends on the type of reading one does. I have read plenty of English books in the domain of religion with examples of footnotes taking up a majority of the page just like the example posted above.
Whatever the language, English included, footnotes are a requirement for certain publications.

Looking through this topic, we can see that people have been begging for footnotes and endnotes for 3 years now. I absolutely love Publisher, but like many people cannot abandon InDesign or QuarkXpress until Serif provides really basic, essential features for desktop publishing. It seems there is a lot of concentration on magazine-y stuff with lots of clever Designer & Photo integration, BUT that's not nearly as important to many of us as essential DTP features like footnotes. 
Cross-referencing could use a serious boost too. I often want to refer to an example by number. Sometimes that number will change if I add in a new, preceding example. In Quark, I can update the cross-reference to that example. In Publisher I can't even (as far as I can see) cross-reference specific text – though I can link to an anchor, but that's not the same nor as useful for my purposes.
It's been a long, long, long time Serif. We love the program but you're making it too hard to complete the transition from InDesign/QuarkXpress.  You're at risk of losing your market edge with this really slow response to basic, essential DTP features. Even the $80 Mellel app that I wrote my PhD in has had such features as long as I've known it (going back to 2005). 
Drop the glitzy graphics stuff (which I bet of lot of us might not be using) for a while, and quickly catch up with the features your dedicated, but exasperated, customers are asking for.

Looking through this topic, we can see that people have been begging for footnotes and endnotes for 3 years now. I absolutely love Publisher, but like many people cannot abandon InDesign or QuarkXpress until Serif provides really basic, essential features for desktop publishing. It seems there is a lot of concentration on magazine-y stuff with lots of clever Designer & Photo integration, BUT that's not nearly as important to many of us as essential DTP features like footnotes. 
Cross-referencing could use a serious boost too. I often want to refer to an example by number. Sometimes that number will change if I add in a new, preceding example. In Quark, I can update the cross-reference to that example. In Publisher I can't even (as far as I can see) cross-reference specific text – though I can link to an anchor, but that's not the same nor as useful for my purposes.
It's been a long, long, long time Serif. We love the program but you're making it too hard to complete the transition from InDesign/QuarkXpress.  You're at risk of losing your market edge with this really slow response to basic, essential DTP features. Even the $80 Mellel app that I wrote my PhD in has had such features as long as I've known it (going back to 2005). 
Drop the glitzy graphics stuff (which I bet of lot of us might not be using) for a while, and quickly catch up with the features your dedicated, but exasperated, customers are asking for.

Looking through this topic, we can see that people have been begging for footnotes and endnotes for 3 years now. I absolutely love Publisher, but like many people cannot abandon InDesign or QuarkXpress until Serif provides really basic, essential features for desktop publishing. It seems there is a lot of concentration on magazine-y stuff with lots of clever Designer & Photo integration, BUT that's not nearly as important to many of us as essential DTP features like footnotes. 
Cross-referencing could use a serious boost too. I often want to refer to an example by number. Sometimes that number will change if I add in a new, preceding example. In Quark, I can update the cross-reference to that example. In Publisher I can't even (as far as I can see) cross-reference specific text – though I can link to an anchor, but that's not the same nor as useful for my purposes.
It's been a long, long, long time Serif. We love the program but you're making it too hard to complete the transition from InDesign/QuarkXpress.  You're at risk of losing your market edge with this really slow response to basic, essential DTP features. Even the $80 Mellel app that I wrote my PhD in has had such features as long as I've known it (going back to 2005). 
Drop the glitzy graphics stuff (which I bet of lot of us might not be using) for a while, and quickly catch up with the features your dedicated, but exasperated, customers are asking for.

Undoubtedly this request is already somewhere in the many; and a google search shows lots of energetic pleas for it:
The ability to move the ruler origin is essential for my work. 
I can't dump Illustrator until I get this feature as well as arrowheads and calligraphic brushes.
Designer has some amazing features, but if we're to have a satisfactory replacement for Illustrator, wouldn't it be better to provide the absolutely basic and essential features first and then add the arcane stuff later?  (Same problem in Publisher – can't anchor images and that's absolutely basic and essential for dumping InDesign.)
Affinity team, please focus on the can't-live-without features of Illustrator and put them in Designer ... until you do, we're still being price gouged by Adobe.  Meanwhile, I find I'm using Graphic far more than Designer because at least it has arrowheads (not as good as Illustrator, but acceptable) and calligraphic brushes.
There's so much to love about Designer but the missing essential features become a source of resentment the longer they're missing. 
I guess Affinity is still deciding whether they want us to leave Adobe or just use Designer as well ...??

Undoubtedly this request is already somewhere in the many; and a google search shows lots of energetic pleas for it:
The ability to move the ruler origin is essential for my work. 
I can't dump Illustrator until I get this feature as well as arrowheads and calligraphic brushes.
Designer has some amazing features, but if we're to have a satisfactory replacement for Illustrator, wouldn't it be better to provide the absolutely basic and essential features first and then add the arcane stuff later?  (Same problem in Publisher – can't anchor images and that's absolutely basic and essential for dumping InDesign.)
Affinity team, please focus on the can't-live-without features of Illustrator and put them in Designer ... until you do, we're still being price gouged by Adobe.  Meanwhile, I find I'm using Graphic far more than Designer because at least it has arrowheads (not as good as Illustrator, but acceptable) and calligraphic brushes.
There's so much to love about Designer but the missing essential features become a source of resentment the longer they're missing. 
I guess Affinity is still deciding whether they want us to leave Adobe or just use Designer as well ...??

Agree.  I have 20 years' worth of INDD files and now laboriously, as time permits, wading through and exporting IDML so I can move to Quark and/or Affinity Publisher. But would be so good if Publisher could import/open INDD files.  can't wait to dump Adobe and their rip-off subscription system.
 

Many, many thanks.  Also sounds like importing PDF works reasonably–very well..  However, I'll give the batch converter a trial tomorrow.

I bought it just because I'm really excited on the replacement potential of AI. But its REALLY necessary  to add arrows (at the ends of lines) and dash lines in my work as a UI designer. so Plz add this function into your product ASAP. I'm almost crazy and it really disturbs my work!!
 
I try to import PDF with dash lines into AD from other apps, but it doesn't recognize dash lines at all?????Whats this problem???
 
I looked around the bbs and found lots people who have the same needs. NOT only use the arrow tools!!!!! its really not easy to use!!!!

I need arrowheads on paths, one end, both, and arrowhead shape options.

Apologies. I did not explain what I meant very well, which was just that I assume arrows are no longer on the roadmap because they added the arrow shape tool, which I'm guessing they think is enough.
 
But like a lot of other people I do not think that is enough & would also like to see arrowheads as an option for the end(s) of strokes, at the least for open curves. Having the shape options shown in the center box of my example would be nice, but for now I would settle for some simple arrowheads that for example scaled with stroke weight.

Yes, he and we knew that. But for about 1.5 years zing0714 and “lots people” need “arrows at the ends of lines … NOT only … the arrow tools!!!!!” as you can see in his attached screenshots.