Wosven

I don't know what type of gradients you need, but I had fun doing this page that can produce simple SVG with linear of radial gradients.
The stops are equaly distanced, and you can only create stops, modify their color, of create them from a list of colors in hexadecimal values (#ffffff). Once exported to SVG, it's easy to open in AD to save as gradient (after resizing the gradient, since it's always larger than the CSS one...)

SVG_gradient_editor_v5.zip
 


SVG_gradient_editor.zip

For very complex gradients, it could be faster to export a shape with gradient as SVG, and edit the SVG file to add more stops manually with a text editor.
The syntax is human-readable and quite easy.
When finished, import the svg and save the gradient as swatch.
 
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd">
<svg width="100%" height="100%" viewBox="0 0 1280 1024" version="1.1" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xml:space="preserve" xmlns:serif="http://www.serif.com/" style="fill-rule:evenodd;clip-rule:evenodd;stroke-linejoin:round;stroke-miterlimit:2;">
    <rect x="0" y="0" width="1280" height="1024" style="fill:url(#_Linear1);"/>
    <defs>
        <linearGradient id="_Linear1" x1="0" y1="0" x2="1" y2="0" gradientUnits="userSpaceOnUse" gradientTransform="matrix(1280,0,0,1280,0,411.851)">
        <stop offset="0" style="stop-color:rgb(235,235,235);stop-opacity:1"/>
        <stop offset="0.25" style="stop-color:rgb(98,98,255);stop-opacity:1"/>
        <stop offset="0.5" style="stop-color:rgb(118,118,118);stop-opacity:1"/>
        <stop offset="0.75" style="stop-color:rgb(118,0,0);stop-opacity:1"/>
        <stop offset="1" style="stop-color:black;stop-opacity:1"/>
    </linearGradient>
    </defs>
</svg>
 

Hi @Sueratchet and welcome!
It look like the use of LUT:
or some other way to modify the general tones of the images, like adjustement layers.

Should do a bit more to the flesh but it will do for now.

Did a bit more to it afterwards.

I would probably be asymmetrical after using 8 pints! (Thought I would get in there first before Alfred noticed it.)

TL;DR
For maximum flexibility, it’s common for the licensing info to be included in a separate file in the distribution package.

Until we get a story editor in Affinity Publisher, here is an option for Windows Users. The full version is now free to all. This could be a useful lightweight word processor which may cater to our needs. Sadly, it is no longer being developed, but it is worth a look.
 
https://www.jarte.com/index.html

Guys! I have found a solution but a bizarre one. I have just opened the Affinity Publisher via Rosetta and exported with the previous first settings (thus PDF 1.7 CMYK FOGRA 39) and all displaying issues and "glitches" have disappeared. Hence, it must be an issue in between the M1 chip and program itself.

Take care and please have a look at this issue!
Cheers.

Aww... you're wrecking a great convoluted, never ending, most likely pointless discussion. Next thing to happen is someone will say it is dinner time and they have to go.

???
Yes. The same way as when in a store, items are displayed in front of me, and I can steal them.
But I don't. Do I get a medal now? I think I winned an aureole earlier...

???
Yes. The same way as when in a store, items are displayed in front of me, and I can steal them.
But I don't. Do I get a medal now? I think I winned an aureole earlier...

For a font to be used by an application, any application, doesn't mean that it is not still governed by the license. 
The license forbids copying an Adobe cloud font. It's a joint responsibility for the user and the application to honor that license.
Adobe cloud fonts are in a certain location. Serif knows that location. Serif should not give its users the choice to package them. It's that simple. 

The point of this thread is Serif is not staying within the law. By Serif even making a copy of the cloud font, they are in violation of the Adobe cloud font license. I would argue even giving the user a choice to make a package using (at least) Adobe cloud fonts makes Serif complicit.

Adobe cloud fonts should not be packaged as it violates the license to copy or move those fonts. Other cloud font vendors have/can have different license terms. As this thread and the original thread began with Adobe cloud fonts, that is what I can say.
Packaging is valuable for archival purposes and possible alterations of the application file as it uses the exact same font at the time of packaging. Font metrics can/do change when a font is updated and a new font version can cause type to reflow differently. However, Adobe cloud fonts cannot, should not ever be packaged as per their licensing.

We did that one too, in "sevices funéraires" (funeral services). Usually, when people retire, we try to do at least a flyer with the worst typos or errors made and also nice things

Could you try exporting a PDF and then print that instead of the Publisher document.

See further:
How to Use PDF Files in Silhouette Studio (Youtube video)
Import SVG and PDF files (Designer Edition Feature) - video
https://www.cinoradesign.ch/welches-ist-das-richtige-dateiformat-zum-plotten/

Before PDFs, we received ads, etc., generally as high-res TIFFs. Sometimes, we were given the Postscript files directly, versus the applications files, and if there were issues we could fix, we edited the .ps files. That typically was faster than using couriers to expedite obtaining the application files. "Bad" PDFs were always rasterized in PS as you mention. These days, I can often fix PDFs, but still rasterize if the first time attempting to fix doesn't take.

Completely right, I'm too used to write ID. It was simply XPress, and XP in the old days, and today QXP.
 
Certainly not, that why I didn't understood people suggesting this in the first place.
 
I was just wondering, since I don't have those old PDF — or they are buried somewhere and I don't want to search and test —, how printers managed those files, and the kind of errors they produced (we didn't used Pitstop in those days). It's simply curiosity, that's not really important, but if we had known, we would have tried to do better.
Usually, most problems came from us, users forgetting to update links, or using low resolution images.
The restricted font happened only once, since we were careful afterward.
Or today, when clients don't look at the specification we send them, but it's different.
Some problems, needing special workflow for converting the PDF, are due to exotic PDF libraries, probably not set properly in the original apps, or without possibility to modify the settings finely. But those are mainly legal ads or classified ads send to us. 
With small ads containing too many errors, flattening the files to raster image is the faster solution.

It's QXP, btw. QXD was the file extension for old versions of QXP files...
If what you are suggesting is to convert cloud fonts to curves in an APub packaged file, it wouldn't be a good thing.
Another off-topic btw...we/I only ever had a single page in a pdf that refused to play nice. That was an ID-generated pdf.

It might also be useful to be able to exclude restricted fonts individually (including some, omitting some) if you know that you have the rights for some of the fonts.
And along that line, it would be useful if the dialog would display the font license information, which many fonts contain, to help you make the right decision based on the use that will be made of the document package.

Cloud fonts have pros and contras, similarly as non-cloud based fonts.
I want to have both alternatives, and also welcome open source/free fonts, even when provided by such Adobe/Microsoft/Apple-comparable evil corporations as Google. If e.g. Adobe Fonts kind of a low-cost professional service (just compare the prices with those of e.g. Monotype) is lost because of large-scale illegal distribution of free versions of these fonts (helped by competitive companies like Serif), it is a sad thing for many working in the business. Font license agreements can be absurd, and there are good reasons to avoid cloud-based fonts in certain kinds of projects, or for categorically opposing the whole principle, but ability to use a large collection of high-quality fonts and pay just EUR 10 per month is something that was never really available back in the "good old times". Anyone who sees license restrictions just as kinds of monopolistic plots or restrictions on free communication have probably never earned their living on graphic design. Today there are plenty of alternatives for less graphic design oriented users, Google alone has 1,365 font families (based on the Wikipedia article), so why even bother trying to work with illegally acquired "corporate" type?
We have been in this business since the middle of 1980s and started with .WFN fonts that came with CorelDRAW (subsequently replaced by "1,000 fonts", first in Type 1 and then in TrueType and OTF TrueType format by Bitstream, which later was hogged by Monotype). That alone was a good alternative for the mix of totally obscure-source (mostly illegally copied) fonts that could be downloaded from the BBSs of that time. We have subsequently purchased licenses for FontFolio 8 and 11.1, and numerous licenses for individual font families created by miscellaneous foundries, whether purchased directly from the designers or providers like Adobe, Linotype and Monotype. There has been some culture and technological finesse involved in font creation, well worth paying (a bit extra), and I think that there still is. I can understand that these kinds of appreciations are nonsensical to many posters in this thread, but personally I think that development of human rights in the field of typography could well be left in the hands of vocal preachers of this ideology, without Serif's assistance.

From Adobe:
Similarly, the terms of service do not allow copying or moving the files that have been activated through the Creative Cloud desktop application.

I don't think you understand Serif's complicity in allowing a user to violate their agreement. Serif had to have (I believe they did so) tested the "feature" as regards collecting fonts that are in hidden user accounts. If they did, they violated their agreement--they broke the law in so doing. Further, with willfulness, Serif is allowing their users to violate their licenses. They are complicit in that act whether the user understand the EULA or not.
So, are you against Serif changing how the packaging of cloud fonts now works to where cloud fonts are initially set to not be included and provide the user the menas to override that choice and include restricted fonts in the package?

Why stop there? Just state that nobody should use any software or any other resources that are in any way encumbered by licensing restrictions of any kind.