Trevor J Richens

I had the same issue with PagePlus so I would imagine it's the PDF library Serif use.
There are online PDF compressing tools but I purchased NX Powerlite Desktop which appears to reduce files to roughly 20% which works for web downloads and in many cases works for sending to printer with acceptable reduction in quality but YMMV of course.

I agree and was going to suggest the same thing when I found this post.
I'd like an option to allow you to select absolute or relative paths to images, etc.
Maybe for an image this could be done "intelligently" so if you use a resource on a network folder the path would be absolute, but for a local resource it would be relative?
Or perhaps be able specify a folder ( or folders ) in the document setup for resource locations.
I have sub-folders for different sections of of publications and sub-folders within those so images for any particular job will be spread across several folders.
Some, like advertisements, will get used in several different jobs, others just once in a single article.
 
This sort of ties in with having an option to "package" a publication with its resources for passing to a third party?

I agree and was going to suggest the same thing when I found this post.
I'd like an option to allow you to select absolute or relative paths to images, etc.
Maybe for an image this could be done "intelligently" so if you use a resource on a network folder the path would be absolute, but for a local resource it would be relative?
Or perhaps be able specify a folder ( or folders ) in the document setup for resource locations.
I have sub-folders for different sections of of publications and sub-folders within those so images for any particular job will be spread across several folders.
Some, like advertisements, will get used in several different jobs, others just once in a single article.
 
This sort of ties in with having an option to "package" a publication with its resources for passing to a third party?

Totally agree that this thread no longer serves any purpose. There is a workaround using pdf that works for some and not for others. I find it incredulous that people are going as far as "demanding" answers or timelines for the developers to provide a solution to importing another company's file format. To my knowledge Serif never advertised that as a "future feature" for their product yet they are being castigated by a few who see that as a prerequisite to using Affinity. If it is a prerequisite, get over it and stick with your current software that can cost you every month what the one off price of the Affinity product costs. You can then leave the rest of the more than happy Serif customers to read meaningful threads on the real benefits and value that Serif have brought to the market. As raised by @Haakoo, Serif probably need another method of responding to feature requests.

I'm surprised that this thread has been allowed to continue. Serif/Affinity are obviously not in the software business as a hobby - it is a business and no doubt like any business is intended to show a profit.
That being the case, there's no doubt in my opinion that the developers will introduce new features, etc on a soon as possible basis as there's every incentive for them to do so. If, although I very much doubt it they manage to find a way of opening INDD files directly with Publisher then so be it although as that file format is constantly, or so it appears to me, to be a moving Adobe target it will be a no go in my book.
IDML - well maybe but going on about it day after day isn't going to make it happen any faster. Publisher is what it is and for now that's what it is. 

(...)

Really? What have I done all the years without?
 

I agree.
It often seems to crash if you scroll too quickly through a document - not exactly sure how fast "too quick" is though.
Have had this happen a few times.
This is using 1.7.2.422 but it's not something I can reproduce on demand.

If people simply want to be able to make use of old projects originally created in InDesign then I can see their point - to a degree. To call not having the ability to read and write to IDML a deal breaker is simply ridiculous though. It's a useful to have for those making the transition but honestly if you're migrating to Affinity from Indesign then for goodness sake have some common sense and run both applications until you've finished with the projects you built on the Adobe platform. Incidentally, I don't hear the same shouting about Quark Xpress, but I suppose that's because Quark doesn't use a subscription model so owners can continue using their copy of Xpress after they have migrated but once you stop paying your Adobe sub you're beggared. But it's not Serif's fault or problem that people have bought into the Adobe model. I have the photography Creative Cloud subscription and will continue to pay it because I don't have a problem with that but also need to have it because I teach the software to photographers, but if I need to add Affinity Photo to my arsenal along with publisher and Designer then I'll buy it and use it as necessary as part of the excellent Persona concept, but I won't necessarily abandon Adobe in the process - but that's my choice.
When InDesign was first released it frankly wasn't very good and certainly wasn't compatible with Quark. It's taken 20 years to mature in to the industry standard product it has become yet some Affinity users seem to want everything now - not going to happen sorry. I think that to become a success then Affinity Publisher has to take it's own path just as InDesign did all that time ago. If in the process an IDML converter is part of the deal then fine. If not then live with it. Frankly there are far more important functions that should be added such as a proper package manager and addressing some of the apparent pdf/x conversion issues (though I suspect many of the complaints are down to a failure of users to properly understand the PDF/X protocols).
I can understand that collaboration might be an issue if you're working with an InDesign user (though one has to ask why are you working with two incompatible software packages in that way?). I also understand that it might be a must have if you receive IDML files from a client to work on but it makes no business sense to work like that in the longer term. IF you regularly receive IDML or INDD files it would make sense to continue to retain InDesign until Publisher is mature enough to stand on it's own two feet and become another mainstream product like Quark and InDesgn (which may not be that far off).
 

As someone with no skin in this game but with many years experience with data interchange I would seriously advise Affinity not to even consider supporting Adobe or other 3rd party formats.
The level of cheapskate entitlement expressed in this thread will be as nothing to when these characters try to convert their inevitably botched documents and blame you if it doesn't work. You are opening yourself up to investigating the ineptitude of your users and supporting undocumented bugs in third party software. This is a massive level of effort which would be better spent improving your own products. You may follow the IDML spec but what you really need to do is interpret it in exactly the same way as Adobe. Do not become an InDesign clone (InDesign already exists) become your own streamlined and improved product.
If people want to reuse legacy documents then those documents can just be recreated and the content cut and pasted over. After all what is the return on investment to Affinity in streamlining this process?
Or, if you do produce a converter then make it a separate, paid-for application. That way it becomes a revenue stream and those that do not need this functionality do not have to bear the cost or overhead of supporting it.

As mentioned, the IDML import is being worked on. You're no worse off now than you were last month before Publisher was released. If you have a bunch of INDD files you can continue working with them using InDesign as you have been. Or you can get a copy of Xpress, which I believe imports INDD. I'm not happy that the feature is not yet available but ecstatic that someone had the stones to compete with Adobe at all. Over the last 10 years no other company, neither Quark or Corel, or anyone else has even tried to create a full suite of pro design products.
Import needs to be addressed no doubt, but it's not a deal breaker to me personally. There are other issues I find more problematic, but I keep reading posts where some user insists his missing feature is the most import one of all. Then essentially bashing Serif for not seeing things their way. I think the only reason people are so upset is because Adobe is bleeding them dry with their subscription model. Otherwise, why not stick with Adobe? Adobe is the exploiter, Affinity is the alternative, even if imperfect.

I don't look a gift horse in the mouth. We're still at version 1.x. I accept the flaws because the alternatives are slim and costly and because there are a lot of positives that the Affinity line brings to the table.

Thanks for pointing that out. The level of entitlement by some on these boards is astounding sometimes. People seem to want every feature from Adobe's "bloated" product, at version 1, for $50. The anger is misdirected. Serif is not the one exploiting you even if you lost $40.

I had the same issue with PagePlus so I would imagine it's the PDF library Serif use.
There are online PDF compressing tools but I purchased NX Powerlite Desktop which appears to reduce files to roughly 20% which works for web downloads and in many cases works for sending to printer with acceptable reduction in quality but YMMV of course.

But that's what it's defined to do. The scaling handle changes the container size and scales the contents.
If you don't want the contents scaled, don't use the scaling handle.

Resizing text frame using scale handle should NOT scale contents!
Normal and most used usage is to reshape text container using handles. Text size should be adjusted via styles.
Ability to change shape AND text size as an object is just an extra feature. Sometimes useful but not really bread&butter. Usually it is done with mod key with handle, Publisher has extra handle for it.

I found I had this issue a short while back.
I'd been updating the versions as they had been released.
Found that when I uninstalled, deleted the AppData folder for Publisher in my user folder, and then re-installed as new the problem went away.
However it has re-appeared in 1.7.376 so I have just uninstalled that version and re-installed the 1.7.384 version.
And... it's still broken but...  try this...
Create your table and enter text into a cell.
Now double-click the cell to select the contents and paste into another cell. It should cause the height of the bottom row to increase.
Delete the pasted text - keep the text that was in the first cell.
Now select the text by highlighting the text characters with the mouse, then copy and paste into a new cell.
For me this doesn't cause the cell height to increase.
it "looks" like the first method is picking up some sort of non-printing character that causes the last row of cells to "go bananas" when it's pasted into another cell.

So although clearly broken, maybe this will work for you??

Using Windows 10 and snapping works OK.
I found that I had other strange issues with Publisher that others didn't report.
Solution for me was to uninstall and delete the user AppData\Roaming folder for Publisher and then re-install - I have been just updated as new beta versions becam available.
That seemed to fix the problems... perhaps that might solve this one for you?

Update on this problem after further testing.
Had same issue on both main PC and laptop.
Both of these had Publisher upgraded over several versions since first beta test was installed.
So on laptop have uninstalled Publisher and deleted user's AppData folder for Publisher - not touched any registry keys though.
Installed as new application v 1.7.371
Now tables work OK when I paste text into the table in a new document
Then tested using a previous document file created using same version and this works OK too
So going to guess that there were some corrupt files either in the application folder or the AppData folder
 
Second update...
Tried same process on my main PC but the problem still exists on that machine - which is a bit annoying.
Well a bit more than annoying as I use tables quite a lot in what I do.
It's not un-usable if this doesn't get fixed for the final release but...