IDML export

[Designer1]

47 minutes ago, emarillo said:

You could save a lot of time with PDF2DTP from Markzware (https://markzware.com/products/pdf2dtp/). 

Purchase option (eur 199/year) is quite high, but Markzware also offer one-off conversions (see https://markzware.com/support/file-conversion-service/ and scroll until page's bottom). You could create a long, unique PDF file in super low resolution, merging there all of your Publisher-made works. The one-off conversion fee for a single PDF file (up to 20 MB) is 39 eur. 

Hope this helps. 
 

Thanks, but this is not a professional solution for me. The only option is to pay for Creative Cloud. I expect Serif to imply an IDML export in Publisher soon!

[MikeW]

20 minutes ago, Designer1 said:

Thanks, but this is not a professional solution for me. The only option is to pay for Creative Cloud. I expect Serif to imply an IDML export in Publisher soon!

As mentioned above, the professional solution is to use ID to begin with. There is no way around that fact even if Serif implements .idml export. You would/should still open an .idml export in ID and ensure to document is correct (it won't be ever a 100%, 1:1 import).

The only layout application I am aware of that can import & export .indd or .idml is Viva Designer. But even with it, the resulting files ought to be opened in ID to ensure they are a 1:1 representation for anything but a simple job.

[Patrick Connor]

23 minutes ago, Designer1 said:

I expect Serif to imply an IDML export in Publisher soon!

Don't, that's not a sensible approach. If serif haven't said it then don't make any assumptions.

[Designer1]

7 minutes ago, Patrick Connor said:

Don't, that's not a sensible approach. If serif haven't said it then don't make any assumptions.

I have only expressed my urgent wish for Publisher improvement. Surely it is not only my wish that Publisher can export IDML. In the forum users from different countries have expressed the same wish several times. This would be a very good feature.

[Mark Oehlschlager]

@Designer1

Sorry to hear of your predicament. Certainly it would be welcome for Serif to implement an IDML export. It would knock down another barrier to entry for prospective customers of the Affinity Suite. Hopefully that capability will come.

In the meantime, I can't imagine that recreating your documents from scratch is a feasible solution. If the printer will not accept a PDF-x document, I can't see a way out of your predicament without purchasing the PDF2DTP application from Markzware to convert to INDD. Moreover, compounding your pain, to be completely confident in the conversion, you would have to subscribe to InDesign for a month in order to check that the INDD conversion is 100% faithful.

I sympathize. Must be a painful position to be in.

Good luck.

[Designer1]

13 hours ago, Mark Oehlschlager said:

@Designer1

Sorry to hear of your predicament. Certainly it would be welcome for Serif to implement an IDML export. It would knock down another barrier to entry for prospective customers of the Affinity Suite. Hopefully that capability will come.

In the meantime, I can't imagine that recreating your documents from scratch is a feasible solution. If the printer will not accept a PDF-x document, I can't see a way out of your predicament without purchasing the PDF2DTP application from Markzware to convert to INDD. Moreover, compounding your pain, to be completely confident in the conversion, you would have to subscribe to InDesign for a month in order to check that the INDD conversion is 100% faithful.

I sympathize. Must be a painful position to be in.

Good luck.

I will recreate hundreds of pages in InDesign.

[fde101]

3 hours ago, Designer1 said:

I will recreate hundreds of pages in InDesign.

Consider changing publishers if possible?

[Designer1]

1 hour ago, fde101 said:

Consider changing publishers if possible?

Unfortunately, graphic design departments in leading publisher houses work only with InDesign. Therefore it would be very important that Affinity Publisher can export IDML.

[fde101]

33 minutes ago, Designer1 said:

Unfortunately, graphic design departments in leading publisher houses work only with InDesign. Therefore it would be very important that Affinity Publisher can export IDML.

I thought you were doing the graphic design, so why should that matter?

People publish works created in QuarkXPress, and that can't export IDML either.

In any case, if you can't switch publishers, you may be stuck with doing a bunch of extra work for now.

IDML export would be nice to have, but even if and when it does show up (seems unlikely for 1.9 at this point so I would guess it will be at least another year if not several) it is likely that due to differences in the feature sets and interpretations of parameters between the two programs, what the publishers would get by importing a Publisher-exported IDML into InDesign will require a bit of cleaning up to be useful, and do you want to trust them to do that without losing the time you put into getting it right in the first place?

[Designer1]

15 minutes ago, fde101 said:

I thought you were doing the graphic design, so why should that matter?

People publish works created in QuarkXPress, and that can't export IDML either.

In any case, if you can't switch publishers, you may be stuck with doing a bunch of extra work for now.

IDML export would be nice to have, but even if and when it does show up (seems unlikely for 1.9 at this point so I would guess it will be at least another year if not several) it is likely that due to differences in the feature sets and interpretations of parameters between the two programs, what the publishers would get by importing a Publisher-exported IDML into InDesign will require a bit of cleaning up to be useful, and do you want to trust them to do that without losing the time you put into getting it right in the first place?

The IDML export is intended to enable a quick transfer from Publisher to InDesign. The import of IDML into Publisher works quite well. It is therefore absolutely incomprehensible why there is still no IDML export function. For PSD there is export and import. These are obligatory basic functions. I am not a software programmer, but I think that IDML export function could be quickly implemented by Serif, because there is already an import function in Publisher. So it would be logical to also provide a much needed export function.

[walt.farrell]

33 minutes ago, Designer1 said:

For PSD there is export and import.

And there are inconsistencies and unsupported functions that cause difficulties with that export/import in both directions.

That's why we know it's likely there will also be issues if IDML export is provided.

[fde101]

1 hour ago, Designer1 said:

The import of IDML into Publisher works quite well. It is therefore absolutely incomprehensible why there is still no IDML export function.

Again, the same is true with QuarkXPress - it also has IDML import, but not export, and it is a considerably more highly priced and more fully-featured page layout program at this point than Publisher is so far.

Import and export of the same format do not necessarily share the same code; reading and writing are two different things and Serif did have to put some effort into making IDML import work, so export is not likely as straightforward as you seem to think.

To import IDML, Serif has to translate some InDesign features that do not exist in Publisher so that it can make sense of what is in the IDML to some reasonable degree; it would need to do the same (in reverse) to translate Publisher features which do not exist in InDesign when exporting to IDML.

[MikeW]

1 minute ago, fde101 said:

Again, the same is true with QuarkXPress - it also has IDML import, but not export, and it is a considerably more highly priced and more fully-featured page layout program at this point than Publisher is so far.

Import and export of the same format do not necessarily share the same code; reading and writing are two different things and Serif did have to put some effort into making IDML import work, so export is not likely as straightforward as you seem to think.

To import IDML, Serif has to translate some InDesign features that do not exist in Publisher so that it can make sense of what is in the IDML to some reasonable degree; it would need to do the same (in reverse) to translate Publisher features which do not exist in InDesign when exporting to IDML.

While QXP has no .idml export, there is at least utilities/add-ons that can accomplish the export. As well, most publishing houses (all that I have worked with) accept Q files for their further work, archiving, and/or translation services (using either Q native files or its tagged text export, which is the same with ID's tagged text export for translation services).

The point of comparison/disparity is that there is a 2-way export/import mechanism versus APub's 1-way import. Added to that exactly zero publishing houses or translation services I am aware of accept APub files leave APub as an end-source only solution lacking collaboration work-flows.

There is little APub can do that its bigger relatives can accomplish. Therefore the other layout applications can (would be able to) translate an .idml export reasonable well--but as I have mentioned, it would still need to be fixed in the receiving application if further work was required. For translation services, an APub .idml export would likely suffice.

[Mark Oehlschlager]

11 hours ago, Designer1 said:

I will recreate hundreds of pages in InDesign.

@Designer1

If that's the most economical way out of this problem you have (as opposed to purchasing the PDF2DTP license), do what you must. 

I'm not sure why the publisher demands INDD files and refuses PDF files. But if you are wedded to this publisher, you have no choice but to either subscribe to Adobe InDesign, or to purchase the Markzware PDF2DTP license. To my knowledge, Markzware does not yet make a Publisher 2 IDML or INDD conversion app.

[MikeW]

8 minutes ago, Mark Oehlschlager said:

... I'm not sure why the publisher demands INDD files and refuses PDF files....

Not the person in question but the reason every single publisher I have worked with wants original files so they are contractor independent. Some publishers also independently massage the files for various reasons, add various bits, etc.

Really, I am at a loss as to why people who may not work with publishers are even arguing their points.

[Jowday]

Yup. At the front line it is normal to adjust to reality, not to principles.

[Mark Oehlschlager]

5 hours ago, MikeW said:

Really, I am at a loss as to why people who may not work with publishers are even arguing their points.

@MikeW

Not intending to argue a point. Rather, participating in the discussion and exploring practical routes to a solution.

Bottom line is pretty clear here: @Designer1 is better off subscribing to Adobe InDesign, as that is the file format his publisher demands. Neither Serif nor Markzware offers him much relief.

Maybe, some years from now, there will be other alternatives for him.

[MikeW]

@Mark Oehlschlager

My main objection was to your, and others, not understanding why a pdf doesn't suffice.

Publisher's generally are not the people doing the printing. So a pdf, which I do also supply when that is part of the spec, doesn't generally meet their needs.

[Designer1]

12 hours ago, Mark Oehlschlager said:

@Designer1

If that's the most economical way out of this problem you have (as opposed to purchasing the PDF2DTP license), do what you must. 

I'm not sure why the publisher demands INDD files and refuses PDF files. But if you are wedded to this publisher, you have no choice but to either subscribe to Adobe InDesign, or to purchase the Markzware PDF2DTP license. To my knowledge, Markzware does not yet make a Publisher 2 IDML or INDD conversion app.

 

5 hours ago, MikeW said:

@Mark Oehlschlager

My main objection was to your, and others, not understanding why a pdf doesn't suffice.

Publisher's generally are not the people doing the printing. So a pdf, which I do also supply when that is part of the spec, doesn't generally meet their needs.

@Patrick Connor

The problem is also that one can't produce e-books with Affinity Publisher. Therefore, the publishing house works only with InDesign.

[Wosven]

 

On 12/11/2020 at 12:11 PM, Designer1 said:

PSD can import and export Publisher. Why then IDML only import and export not. Unprofessional and user unfriendly! Here must be urgently improved!

  But it's not perfect, and text and some effects would be rasterised and unusable in Photoshop. It's only usefull if you limit yourself to simple workflow you know will open without problems.

 

On 12/10/2020 at 4:10 PM, Designer1 said:

The most important function that Publisher requires is export of IDML files. Without the export to InDesign, professional work with publishing houses is not possible. The publishing houses only work with InDesign.

As already answered, you can't just send back IDML you didn't checked in inDesign. If they need to spend hours correcting the files, before or after using the file to produce and print a PDF in which there're errors they didn't expect and need to reprint... it would be terrible.

On 10/18/2020 at 5:54 PM, Queen Rarity said:

I would like idml export, some of my clients use indesign and I sometimes have to send their files back to them after I have altered them. Having idml export would greatly increase my ability to help them.

Sometimes, we need external help to do some of our magazine issues. We expect people to work with inDesign, knowing it enough to send back a usable exported archive we can seamlessly add to ours.

And if we need to open and correct some things, or simply get the right export profiles for a PDF print, we don't want to open a messed up file in which the text styles, the variables, the GREP, etc. are completely messed up or missing.

When people give you a type of file, they expect to get back the same quality, the use of the same application.

 

On 12/11/2020 at 10:34 AM, Designer1 said:

There must be a professional way to export IDML files from Publischer. As fast as possible! I have created hundreds of pages in Publischer, but the publishing house needs from me Indesign files. I am desperate. Have to redesign everything in Indesign now. Help SERIF!!!

 

On 9/25/2020 at 1:27 PM, wonderings said:

This sounds like a nightmare. If you really want files that printers or anyone can adjust and change without issue then you want to use Indesign. Even if you could save as an IDML file in Publisher you are in for a world of headaches when things do not export properly and open correctly in Indesign.  I would say most if not all printers do not want files that have been exported from a different app to open in Indesign, this is not helpful as there is no way to know if what I see in Indesign is what you saw in Publisher. The only solution for this is to use the same app and this is another case where Adobe CC is great. Everyone has the same version (save for the few small shops that are holding on to CS6 while the rest of the world moves on).

+1

 

On 12/11/2020 at 4:08 PM, Designer1 said:

No. It is a very large publishing house. The publishing house needs IDML files or InDesign files. They don't care that I work in Publisher. The files are needed for further processing. There is a graphic design department in the publishing house.

 

12 hours ago, Mark Oehlschlager said:

I'm not sure why the publisher demands INDD files and refuses PDF files. But if you are wedded to this publisher, you have no choice but to either subscribe to Adobe InDesign, or to purchase the Markzware PDF2DTP license. To my knowledge, Markzware does not yet make a Publisher 2 IDML or INDD conversion app.

 

Big publishing houses (and smaller to), need to archive correctly everything and be able to browse their servers to get some files and update them at leat yearly, or simply get some illustrations from those, etc.

There's most advenced archives sometimes, with plugin to export on servers, and a web portal to browse the archives visually (the pages) by publications, or by author or illustrators, etc. And you can look at some article or some photo, you'll have informations about copyright to know if it's reusable, or if you need to contact them, etc., you can "order" what you need, and you'll receive the file or a link to get them specifically. Everything is automated. It can be worldwild and easy.
But this can only be done if the files are done in the same application, to archive everything.

 

Last: always respect the people you're working with or for. If they expect inDesign files, work in inDesign. If you give back problematic files, that's the best way they stop working with you.

[Mark Oehlschlager]

@Wosven

All very practical and unimpeachable advice: 1)Recognize that InDesign is an industry standard, reinforced by the large investments so many institutions have made in supporting archival and storage systems; and 2) Remember, before designing and building any project, make sure you know what the deliverable requirements are, including file type.

But then comes the inevitable depressing feeling of defeat and sense of imprisonment: pay for and use InDesign, whether you like it or not. Having the world agree on open exchange file formats for all kinds of work would empower end-users to pick their tools of choice, and would encourage more competition in the app development space. But this would be a pipe dream, it seems.

Consider the example of Microsoft Office. I think the Microsoft Office suite is absolute shit from a UX point of view, but it's ubiquity and default status as an industry standard means everyone must adopt it, and discount competing productivity suites, even if the alternative is a better piece of software.

Not sure what this means for the Affinity Suite. Maybe doomed to a niche market.

[Wosven]

5 hours ago, Mark Oehlschlager said:

But then comes the inevitable depressing feeling of defeat and sense of imprisonment: pay for and use InDesign, whether you like it or not. Having the world agree on open exchange file formats for all kinds of work would empower end-users to pick their tools of choice, and would encourage more competition in the app development space. But this would be a pipe dream, it seems.

I use to work with QXP until v 8.5, and switching to ID was interesting because I'm a geek and needed for long scripting (with scripting I can do at home on PC and test at work on Mac, and QXD and Applescript prevent that), and regular expressions. But I never said "this app is better", since there are good ideas in the 2 apps, and when working with one, you can miss some from the other(s). I suppose uit's the same with VivaDesigner and Scribus, but I don't work enough with them to know enough.

With APub, that enough to get competition. But competition won't give user free rein to switch from one to the other constantly, and that's fair game and logical. It's like the Office suite. Before Office 365, you could use other apps like we did on Mac without problems.  Today, with all the Office apps and links between them, cloud storage option and automation, it would be difficult to use different ones.

 

That's what is done with the Affinity apps, and it's good. But they'll need time for more features, to smooth tasks that need too many clicks/panels and erase bugs. Evidently, people keep an eye on them, and if they can stop few CC subscriptions for job that don't need more, that's good.
Coronavirus didn't help, and if the apps were ready, with more automation possible and features, it would have been the time to switch for using them, instead of reducing the costs and firing people or whole rédactions (newsrooms ?).

5 hours ago, Mark Oehlschlager said:

Maybe doomed to a niche market.

For now perhaps, but when the day come they can be use to produce newspapers and magazines seemlessly, perhaps ebooks or at least export to good HTML, etc. companies that need it will switch like they did from QXP.

[fde101]

10 hours ago, Mark Oehlschlager said:

Maybe doomed to a niche market.

One could flip this on its head and argue that if enough people were to push the issue then the market would be doomed to a set of niche users...  those willing to put up with monthly fees and the use of less desirable software.

This could then provide an opportunity to create a new, smarter market.

It may not happen overnight, and in the meantime people need to be paid, but such changes have happened before, and will eventually happen again.

[wonderings]

11 hours ago, Mark Oehlschlager said:

@Wosven

All very practical and unimpeachable advice: 1)Recognize that InDesign is an industry standard, reinforced by the large investments so many institutions have made in supporting archival and storage systems; and 2) Remember, before designing and building any project, make sure you know what the deliverable requirements are, including file type.

But then comes the inevitable depressing feeling of defeat and sense of imprisonment: pay for and use InDesign, whether you like it or not. Having the world agree on open exchange file formats for all kinds of work would empower end-users to pick their tools of choice, and would encourage more competition in the app development space. But this would be a pipe dream, it seems.

Consider the example of Microsoft Office. I think the Microsoft Office suite is absolute shit from a UX point of view, but it's ubiquity and default status as an industry standard means everyone must adopt it, and discount competing productivity suites, even if the alternative is a better piece of software.

Not sure what this means for the Affinity Suite. Maybe doomed to a niche market.

If industries changed standard software every time something new came about there would be no standard and it would be chaos. Change does happen but it is gradual. Affinity one day could replace Adobe but that is going to take years and I believe would involve Affinity offering more in their software that would pull people over. Quark lagged behind, it was good, it was the standard but in same Indesign with a better display, great pdf handling and export and more features on top of working well with Illustrator and Photoshop the other 2 standards. 

[PaoloT]

The Google Doc Suite was accounted for about 16% of the "productivity suites" a couple years ago. LibreOffice for about 13%. These are niches, but very healthy niches.

There are markets that are precluded to alternative software: employees using what the company installs in their computers; freelances depending on companies forcing them to use mainstream software; casual users cracking only the most famous piece of software to feel they are professional.

The, there are freelances who can choose their tools, and they may be in very high numbers. A growing number. Small publishers of books and magazines; graphic artists delivering their content in AI, PSD or PDF format; self-publishers looking for something better than the raw output from Word; schools and university departments looking for high-quality, cost-effective solutions.

Targeting a niche may be a viable solution to stay financially healthy. You don't have to overgrow, and maybe lose control of you company. You know your users, and can respond to their needs. It may be a golden niche, safe enough to be solid for a long time.

Back to productivity software: I've not had to use MS software for decades, apart for the occasional need to check a document for compatibility, and open the mess someone sent me (and was still a mess in Word). I've been happy with independent software with good compatibility with MS file formats. And I'm now very happy with Apple software, giving me all the compatibility I need (nobody has asked me: this s@#t you sent me can't be opened, what the h#@k did you use for it?!?").

Standard file formats are a bless, when you don't have to share the original files, but only the finished product, that can be delivered in a standard interchange file format. PDF for printers, and IDML for translators and collaborators reusing your content seem good to me.

Paolo