afroniquely Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 Adding my vote for Affinity Publisher to include IDML exports, and even Keynote/PowerPoint exports for full versatility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderings Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 20 minutes ago, afroniquely said: Adding my vote for Affinity Publisher to include IDML exports, and even Keynote/PowerPoint exports for full versatility. IDML export will never be perfect, you can work on a file, make it pretty and then export to IDML for whatever reason and open in Indesign and you can have a host of issues and changes that you will need to correct and change again. I would recommend working in the software that whoever you need to send the files to is using, unless of course they are just printing and can take a PDF. Not sure why you would want to setup keynote and powerpoint in Publisher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaoloT Posted July 29, 2021 Author Share Posted July 29, 2021 18 hours ago, wonderings said: IDML export will never be perfect, you can work on a file, make it pretty and then export to IDML for whatever reason and open in Indesign Exporting to IDML is not necessarily meant to import to InDesign. It might be used to exchange data with CAT software. From Publisher, to Publisher. Paolo  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emarillo Posted July 30, 2021 Share Posted July 30, 2021 14 hours ago, wonderings said: IDML export will never be perfect It would nonetheless be a very welcomed addition to Publisher. And it could be rendered perfect: I often open old Indd (-> idml) CS4 files in CC2020-2021, and the conversion quality is great. Much more than trying to convert XPress layouts with the Markzware tools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderings Posted July 30, 2021 Share Posted July 30, 2021 6 hours ago, emarillo said: It would nonetheless be a very welcomed addition to Publisher. And it could be rendered perfect: I often open old Indd (-> idml) CS4 files in CC2020-2021, and the conversion quality is great. Much more than trying to convert XPress layouts with the Markzware tools. I would expect idml files from older versions of Indesign to open fine in newer versions of Indesign. It is the same software that created so unless Adobe actually removed something that was in CS4 that is not in CC I would imagine it would be pretty flawless. It is a very different story when opening in software created by another company. I do see the value if you are just using it to convert your files if you are moving to Publisher. You would still need to adjust as needed obviously. I think the issue is for people wanting collaboration or to be able to send a working file for someone to continue working on or for print. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrettm30 Posted July 30, 2021 Share Posted July 30, 2021 7 hours ago, emarillo said: Much more than trying to convert XPress layouts with the Markzware tools. Yet, the Markzware conversion of Quark to InDesign is a good example of the level of compatibility that we could expect if Serif were to devote significant resources to making converting Publisher to IDML export. That does not mean that IDML export would not still be helpful in some circumstances, but it is not so perfect as some people are hoping for, and the development time would be significant (as the price of MarkzWare can attest). IDML to newer INDD within InDesign itself is, in many cases, effectively perfect, for the reasons Wonderings pointed out, but this could never be true for going to or from third party programs: the different feature sets and different text engines make it so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeW Posted July 30, 2021 Share Posted July 30, 2021 1 minute ago, garrettm30 said: Yet, the Markzware conversion of Quark to InDesign is a good example of the level of compatibility that we could expect if Serif were to devote significant resources to making converting Publisher to IDML export. That does not mean that IDML export would not still be helpful in some circumstances, but it is not so perfect as some people are hoping for, and the development time would be significant (as the price of MarkzWare can attest). ... I don't really have a dog in this fight, but... Going from an undocumented source (.qxp) to another source format is always going to be difficult. Markzware's converter, going from ID to QXP is realtively better than the other way around because of the path used. However, Serif is converting .idml to APub format already. The reverse of that process isn't any more difficult--the feature mapping from .idml to .apub is already in place. PaoloT, Mark Oehlschlager and ronnyb 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrettm30 Posted July 30, 2021 Share Posted July 30, 2021 3 minutes ago, MikeW said: However, Serif is converting .idml to APub format already. The reverse of that process isn't any more difficult--the feature mapping from .idml to .apub is already in place. That's a good point, and I do agree. However, IDML to Publisher is not perfect, and in my subjective experience, is not better than Markzware Quark to InDesign. I would expect Publisher to IDML to be roughly similar to IDML to Publisher. Like you, I also "don't have a dog in this fight." If Serif did decide to add IDML, it would not hurt my workflow at all. I make these comments only because I some people (not necessarily everyone who has posted here) have what I think are unrealistic expectations that could never be satisfied. Old Bruce 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeW Posted July 30, 2021 Share Posted July 30, 2021 To pick on Quark, Quark also, like Serif, has a myopic vision when it comes to playing nice with others. .idml import will continue to get better for APub, just like it has for QXP. There is every reason to believe that .idml export from either company would also improve over time. Of commercial layout applications, only Viva Designer has a broader view of playing nice with others. It has both .idml and .indd import/export. Is it perfect in either direction? Nope. But of the dozen or so minor updates to each major version, one of the items always involves these features. It's a process. The in/out process cannot improve if it's not ever begun. Alfred, PaoloT, Mark Oehlschlager and 1 other 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhoch2AG Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 On 2/18/2020 at 5:47 PM, PaoloT said: +1 ... Otherwise I (resp. we all) get stuck with InDesign... Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mn0 Posted August 31, 2021 Share Posted August 31, 2021 Hi, I'm not an Affinity user (yet?). I was following this post and wondering if there are any updates regarding exporting files from Publisher that could be read and edited by other software (InDesign, or others), or whether this is a priority for future updates? (I mean .idml file or similar, not editable pdf) I was considering switching to Affinity, but this seems a real deal breaker... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixx Posted September 1, 2021 Share Posted September 1, 2021 17 hours ago, mn0 said: I was considering switching to Affinity, but this seems a real deal breaker... I can imagine how pissed off ID users would be if Publisher exported crappy IDML and they would have to fix those. And people would try to use IDML export in collaboration teams and it would not end well. You would lose customers and Affinity would lose reputation. Stay with ID if others in your team use ID. garrettm30 and Wosven 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wosven Posted September 1, 2021 Share Posted September 1, 2021 16 minutes ago, Fixx said: I can imagine how pissed off Yes, like when we converted QXD files to INDD, it was temporary and for urgency, until we could clean or recreate them properly. It's already a pain between IDML from different CS/CC versions, when you need to check that each object is as it should be, or modify it if features aren't available in an older version... But you dn't always update versions... because... hahem, Affinity apps aren't the only ones that produce a terrible update blocking everyone for 1 week (now, they permit having 2 versions installed). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderings Posted September 1, 2021 Share Posted September 1, 2021 2 hours ago, Wosven said: Yes, like when we converted QXD files to INDD, it was temporary and for urgency, until we could clean or recreate them properly. It's already a pain between IDML from different CS/CC versions, when you need to check that each object is as it should be, or modify it if features aren't available in an older version... But you dn't always update versions... because... hahem, Affinity apps aren't the only ones that produce a terrible update blocking everyone for 1 week (now, they permit having 2 versions installed). Adobe for the most part has fixed this issue with CC. Now everyone has the same version or with the click of button can have the same version with no added cost beyond their monthly fee. I can't remember the last time I had issues with a designer or another shop and having different versions of the big Adobe trio. Adobe also allows you to keep older versions when upgrading as well and it is not limited to one version. I don't think there is a limit really though I only keep one version back incase something went wonky with the new. This is more a habit as I can still download and install the previous version if I need to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wosven Posted September 1, 2021 Share Posted September 1, 2021 18 minutes ago, wonderings said: Adobe for the most part has fixed this issue with CC. Now everyone has the same version or with the click of button can have the same version with no added cost beyond their monthly fee. They can't, since for example, individual round corners introduced in CS5 weren't available in CS4... They can't fix, but ignoring the data, and that mean a different result. A lot of people here seems to use the last CS version to avoid monthly fees. Sometimes, you won't upgrade to avoid paying new version of costly plugins, or simply because really important plugin-scripts made by someone who doesn't work anymore in the company is really complicated or costly to update.  Last time I checked (2 years ago), it was 2 versions on the same computer, and it was a pain to modify registry entries for the files to open in the previous version since I was just testing the last one. New OSes will force people to update, but there's a huge problem with cost: it means new computers, new licences, new fonts... When you need to update all of those, you risk your administrative and accounting manager to have an heart attack... and he'll ask you to wait some (relative value here) years to be able to do this. Or you need to prepare him quietly with studies and calculations, etc. It waas easier in a small studio, when we just updated a computer at a time, and licences for all. Most of the files I receive today are made my the latests versions (but those clients shouldn't have difficulties updating), or made by unknow apps and converted.  But it would be a waste of time if Affinity should check and update constantly an IDML convertion. It's easier to import from IDML. You just read the common proprieties, and convert them to your file format if they exist. In the other way, you should be sure that one of those parameters, if erronous, doesn't corrupt the file: https://www.indesignjs.de/extendscriptAPI/indesign16/#Application.html For now, getting rid of bugs and adding important features seems more important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderings Posted September 1, 2021 Share Posted September 1, 2021 11 minutes ago, Wosven said: They can't, since for example, individual round corners introduced in CS5 weren't available in CS4... They can't fix, but ignoring the data, and that mean a different result. A lot of people here seems to use the last CS version to avoid monthly fees. Sometimes, you won't upgrade to avoid paying new version of costly plugins, or simply because really important plugin-scripts made by someone who doesn't work anymore in the company is really complicated or costly to update.  Last time I checked (2 years ago), it was 2 versions on the same computer, and it was a pain to modify registry entries for the files to open in the previous version since I was just testing the last one. New OSes will force people to update, but there's a huge problem with cost: it means new computers, new licences, new fonts... When you need to update all of those, you risk your administrative and accounting manager to have an heart attack... and he'll ask you to wait some (relative value here) years to be able to do this. Or you need to prepare him quietly with studies and calculations, etc. It waas easier in a small studio, when we just updated a computer at a time, and licences for all. Most of the files I receive today are made my the latests versions (but those clients shouldn't have difficulties updating), or made by unknow apps and converted.  But it would be a waste of time if Affinity should check and update constantly an IDML convertion. It's easier to import from IDML. You just read the common proprieties, and convert them to your file format if they exist. In the other way, you should be sure that one of those parameters, if erronous, doesn't corrupt the file: https://www.indesignjs.de/extendscriptAPI/indesign16/#Application.html For now, getting rid of bugs and adding important features seems more important. It is all anecdotal really, but I don't have any clients or design houses holding onto CS6 or earlier. Everyone I deal with is using CC. This saves so many headaches and as you mentioned and you get rid of those incompatibility issues. I think it is safe to say the vast majority are using Adobe CC. They continue to grow and increase their subscriptions so there is no large pocket of hold outs otherwise I think you would see Adobe looking at changing their strategy. I have not been forced to update yet on my iMac. I am still on Mojave, and we have a few computers using High Sierra as well with latest Adobe offerings. Wosven 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tallrob Posted September 6, 2021 Share Posted September 6, 2021 On 5/24/2021 at 1:04 AM, MikeW said: If your clients use InDesign, you should also use InDesign. Else convince them to use APub. But if you attempt to convince them to use APub, be prepared to find a new client. But the whole point of this feature request is to remedy exactly that problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wosven Posted September 6, 2021 Share Posted September 6, 2021 On 9/6/2021 at 8:15 PM, tallrob said: But the whole point of this feature request is to remedy exactly that problem. If people want inDesign files, you can't give them produced by another app since it won't be able to be 100% identical. It'll produce bugs or errors or missing values, different results, they'll have to waste time correcting the file... In the end, they'll stop working with people unable to produce the INDD file they expect, and they'll be angry if they weren't informed that the app used to produce the file isn't ID. If they give you a file, and you return it with missing features like variables, GREP, and completely different (= messed), they'll assume there's a problem with you, and they'll search more competent people. And if you're working on a team, there's no valid reasons for you to use a different tool that'll give more work to the others if they need to use files you produce.  It's usually faster if you've got the right elements to recreate a document in the right app, with the rights features, than using a wobbly file. And if the files are simple, they can be remade easily or simply the PDF can be modified with a different tool. But all this and more was already developped in other threads... please read them. garrettm30 and Old Bruce 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Oehlschlager Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 @tallrob Because any IDML export (from InDesign to APub, or from APub to InDesign) is not likely to be interpreted 100% correctly by the target application, and because certain proprietary features of both applications will get dropped in translation, the primary utility of an export to IDML feature in APub is simply to make it possible to deliver an APub document to an InDesign user with 95-98% of the design and layout in tact, saving a ton of time that would otherwise be spent recreating the document from scratch. Because the translation can never hope to be 100% accurate in any but the simplest of documents, the IDML export feature that many people here, including myself, are requesting should probably be thought of as a one-time, one-way export function. For obvious reasons, continuous round-tripping a document between InDesign and APub would introduce translation errors with each exchange and require time to repair the translation errors. That could get tedious and discouraging, adding unwanted friction to a collaborative workflow. Having said that, I still think there's a strong case to be made for Serif building or licensing an IDML export feature for APub. It means that APub users (and prospective APub users) can feel more confident in committing to using APub and the rest of the Affinity Suite for publishing and design, knowing that if they must hand off an APub file to an InDesign user, there is a compatible exchange file format in IDML that will keep at least 95-98% of the document design in tact, if not 100%, and thus being able to share one's work while minimizing any necessary format corrections in InDesign as a result of the translation. The alternative scenario, not having an IDML export feature in APub, means one must either commit to the cost and the time spent learning two applications (not something most people would choose), or committing to the cost of just one application – and for most, that means reluctantly abandoning APub for InDesign because it has the advantage of being more mature tool and an industry standard. Seneca, PaoloT and garrettm30 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bruce Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 Why not convince people to purchase the Affinity Suite as a Plug-in for their Adobe suite. Costs less than some of the plugins out there now. Quote Mac Pro (Late 2013) Mac OS 12.7.6 Affinity Designer 2.5.5 | Affinity Photo 2.5.5 | Affinity Publisher 2.5.5 | Beta versions as they appear. I have never mastered color management, period, so I cannot help with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Oehlschlager Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 @Old Bruce You make a good point. That may be a good pitch to some. But in this case, if the question is whether or not to invest time and money into competing but equivalent tools, my guess is that most busy people would probably elect to keep things simple and go with one version of each type of application, and then choose the dominant tools of the industry. PaoloT 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaoloT Posted September 9, 2021 Author Share Posted September 9, 2021 A practical example of IDML export use. These days I've switched my role from author to translator. I'm editing a series of InDesign files without even opening InDesign, if not for checking the output as an actual layout. Really handy. Paolo  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walt.farrell Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 51 minutes ago, PaoloT said: I'm editing a series of InDesign files without even opening InDesign, Are you saying you're opening the IDML file in a text editor and editing it directly? Quote -- Walt Designer, Photo, and Publisher V1 and V2 at latest retail and beta releases PC:    Desktop:  Windows 11 Pro 23H2, 64GB memory, AMD Ryzen 9 5900 12-Core @ 3.00 GHz, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090   Laptop: Windows 11 Pro 23H2, 32GB memory, Intel Core i7-10750H @ 2.60GHz, Intel UHD Graphics Comet Lake GT2 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU.    Laptop 2: Windows 11 Pro 24H2, 16GB memory, Snapdragon(R) X Elite - X1E80100 - Qualcomm(R) Oryon(TM) 12 Core CPU 4.01 GHz, Qualcomm(R) Adreno(TM) X1-85 GPU iPad:  iPad Pro M1, 12.9": iPadOS 18.1, Apple Pencil 2, Magic Keyboard Mac: 2023 M2 MacBook Air 15", 16GB memory, macOS Sequoia 15.0.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaoloT Posted September 9, 2021 Author Share Posted September 9, 2021 2 hours ago, walt.farrell said: Are you saying you're opening the IDML file in a text editor and editing it directly? Not so bold! Just editing it with some linguistic software, perfectly compatible with the IDML file format. Paolo  walt.farrell 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m.vlad Posted September 10, 2021 Share Posted September 10, 2021 On 9/7/2021 at 4:50 AM, Mark Oehlschlager said: @tallrob Because any IDML export (from InDesign to APub, or from APub to InDesign) is not likely to be interpreted 100% correctly by the target application, and because certain proprietary features of both applications will get dropped in translation, the primary utility of an export to IDML feature in APub is simply to make it possible to deliver an APub document to an InDesign user with 95-98% of the design and layout in tact, saving a ton of time that would otherwise be spent recreating the document from scratch. Because the translation can never hope to be 100% accurate in any but the simplest of documents, the IDML export feature that many people here, including myself, are requesting should probably be thought of as a one-time, one-way export function. For obvious reasons, continuous round-tripping a document between InDesign and APub would introduce translation errors with each exchange and require time to repair the translation errors. That could get tedious and discouraging, adding unwanted friction to a collaborative workflow. Having said that, I still think there's a strong case to be made for Serif building or licensing an IDML export feature for APub. It means that APub users (and prospective APub users) can feel more confident in committing to using APub and the rest of the Affinity Suite for publishing and design, knowing that if they must hand off an APub file to an InDesign user, there is a compatible exchange file format in IDML that will keep at least 95-98% of the document design in tact, if not 100%, and thus being able to share one's work while minimizing any necessary format corrections in InDesign as a result of the translation. The alternative scenario, not having an IDML export feature in APub, means one must either commit to the cost and the time spent learning two applications (not something most people would choose), or committing to the cost of just one application – and for most, that means reluctantly abandoning APub for InDesign because it has the advantage of being more mature tool and an industry standard. To be honest, even a slightly broken export feature would be better than none at all. Forcing people to move their entire production to a specific software is not ideal, especially when your app is new in the industry. You cannot expect people to just drop open industry standards in favor of closed source formats from a younger app, especially when there's no reason to have it locked to that format in the first place. PaoloT 1 Quote Mădălin Vlad Graphic Designer contact@mvlad.design https://mvlad.design Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.