[AFPub] problem with idml template

[mopperle]

I plan to print a book with the provider White Wall. On their Webpage they offer to create PDFs:

https://www.whitewall.com/uk/coffee-table-book

This are the book settings I have choosen:

This are the sttings you get for the Cover:

Clicking on Donwload you get an IDML File. When I open the IDML file, the page is double the size (width) as it should be

So the question for me: is there an error in the IDML file or is the file not correctly interpreted by AFPub?

I dont have Adobe Indesign or other software to crosscheck.

cover_A4portrait_paper-digital-glossy_108.idml

[Old Bruce]

31 minutes ago, mopperle said:

Clicking on Donwload you get an IDML File. When I open the IDML file, the page is double the size (width) as it should be

Looks about right for the Cover. The text frame is on the Back of the cover. The blank areas to the right is for the Spine and the Front.

[MikeW]

1 hour ago, mopperle said:

...

Clicking on Donwload you get an IDML File. When I open the IDML file, the page is double the size (width) as it should be

So the question for me: is there an error in the IDML file or is the file not correctly interpreted by AFPub?

I dont have Adobe Indesign or other software to crosscheck.

It is opening up double to the stated width in your APub.

I get the proper width opening it here using Windows:

 

I also opened the template in InDesign and it is correct there, too.

[Alfred]

29 minutes ago, MikeW said:

I get the proper width opening it here using Windows

And I get the proper width opening it here using iPadOS.

[thomaso]

3 hours ago, mopperle said:

So the question for me: is there an error in the IDML file or is the file not correctly interpreted by AFPub?

2 hours ago, Old Bruce said:

Looks about right for the Cover. The text frame is on the Back of the cover. The blank areas to the right is for the Spine and the Front.

1 hour ago, MikeW said:

I also opened the template in InDesign and it is correct there, too.

To me there are various issues in both .idml and .afpub:

1. In ID the master page has an odd size: 433,7 mm x 275 mm … which differs a lot from the title of the idml file: "cover_A4portrait_paper-digital-glossy_108.idml".

2. The 2-page master spread of the idml gets interpreted by APub as a single page and the single document page appears accordingly in the wrong dimensions although it has the Master A applied (which means a document page size that differs from its master page size).

3. In .afpub the master page layer on page 1 has a masking rectangle applied that appears to simply crop the bleed on the right edge. This masking object does not exist in ID.

[mopperle]

@Old Bruce @MikeW @Alfred The dimensions of the Master page are double the size of what it should be. Page 1, which is considered to be front- and backcover got the correct size.

13 hours ago, thomaso said:

1. In ID the master page has an odd size: 433,7 mm x 275 mm … which differs a lot from the title of the idml file: "cover_A4portrait_paper-digital-glossy_108.idml".

This "odd" size is the net dimension of front- + backcover, according to my screenshot #2 above

13 hours ago, thomaso said:

2. The 2-page master spread of the idml gets interpreted by APub as a single page and the single document page appears accordingly in the wrong dimensions although it has the Master A applied (which means a document page size that differs from its master page size).

Exactly, but the single page got the dimensions as it should be according to my screenshot #2 above. Adding another page and you get the same size as the Master. When I export the document as PDF, I get the correct dimensions.

Still the question for me: faulty IDML file, to be adressed at White Wall, and/or Affinity bug with AFPUb not correctly interpreting the IDML file?

[thomaso]

11 minutes ago, mopperle said:

Still the question for me: faulty IDML file, to be adressed at White Wall, and/or Affinity bug with AFPUb not correctly interpreting the IDML file?

IMHO both:

• White Wall …
… to fix their template: either removing the confusing master page,
… or adjust the two master pages in this document for title/cover creation,
… or create a single page (not facing) document for for title/cover creation.

• Affinity …
… to get the 2-page master imported correctly as 2-page spread.
… to clarify / fix the masking rectangle.

[mopperle]

I just checked the template with an online tool and I think this is the problem:

IMHO it should read PageCount="1"

If so, is there a tool to edit the xml files included in the idml container file?

[mopperle]

To explain why it should IMHO read as PageCount="1". When I use the instructions from Blurb to create a cover page, they explicitly mention:

Quote

Make sure Number of pages is set to 1

https://support.blurb.com/hc/en-us/articles/360044955872-Affinity-Publisher-PDF-files

[Alfred]

6 minutes ago, mopperle said:

IMHO it should read PageCount="1"

If so, is there a tool to edit the xml files included in the idml container file?

XML files are plain text, so you can use Notepad or any other text editor. I can’t check right now, but I think Notepad++ will highlight the XML tags in the file, which makes it easier to avoid errors when editing.

Don’t use WordPad, since you would probably end up with unwanted formatting characters.

[thomaso]

1 minute ago, mopperle said:

IMHO it should read PageCount="1"

What makes you think so? The master page spread in ID appears to be done as a 2-page spread (facing pages) while the document's page (for the cover) uses just one of them. The landscape page format in .idml | .afpub for the master pages is actually confusing / faulty for a project titled "A4 portrait". They (White Wall) seem to have created the odd master page size and orientation without need, they could just use no master but a page 1 with the required dimensions.

[Dan C]

Hi @mopperle,

Thanks for the files and information provided above!

I can only comment directly on the file attached and the results when importing into Affinity - from the results I'm seeing I believe that Publisher should be doing a better job at interpreting the Master Page as 2 Facing spreads, rather than a singular page and therefore I will be logging this with our developers now.

Equally, it may be due to the above import error but I do not see a clear reason for the masking rectangle applied in Publisher when importing, so I will be raising this with our team also.

As far as I can tell however, the dimensions for the page itself in your document is correct and the guides are in the same locations, matching the file in InDesign.

I've attached a copy of the .afpub file after resolving the Master page size/layout import issue, and enabled Facing Pages for the main document, as per the instructions linked above:

45 minutes ago, mopperle said:

https://support.blurb.com/hc/en-us/articles/360044955872-Affinity-Publisher-PDF-files

cover_A4portrait_paper-digital-glossy_108_F.afpub

I hope this helps

[mopperle]

Thanks Dan! I also "solved" the issue by simply removing the Master from page 1 and then deleting the Master page.

The printing services I work with (Blurb and White Wall) require two pdf files: content + cover. For the cover you simply do not need a master, as a cover is 1 pager only.

[MikeW]

2 hours ago, thomaso said:

IMHO both:

• White Wall …
… to fix their template: either removing the confusing master page,
… or adjust the two master pages in this document for title/cover creation,
… or create a single page (not facing) document for for title/cover creation.

• Affinity …
… to get the 2-page master imported correctly as 2-page spread.
… to clarify / fix the masking rectangle.

 

2 hours ago, thomaso said:

What makes you think so? The master page spread in ID appears to be done as a 2-page spread (facing pages) while the document's page (for the cover) uses just one of them. The landscape page format in .idml | .afpub for the master pages is actually confusing / faulty for a project titled "A4 portrait". They (White Wall) seem to have created the odd master page size and orientation without need, they could just use no master but a page 1 with the required dimensions.

The .idml has a facing page master set as a spread. But the file is only using one of the facing spread pages. 

If InDesign opens the .idml properly--and it does--there is no fault in the .idml.

If QuarkXPress, Viva Designer and Scribus opens the .idml properly--and they do--just where do you really think the fault lies? 

fwiw, here's a screen shot of how the page panel looks in ID:

[thomaso]

18 hours ago, MikeW said:

If InDesign opens the .idml properly--and it does--there is no fault in the .idml.
(…) --just where do you really think the fault lies? 

I wrote it in my two posts above and labeled it in screenshots. Here just in keywords: • master page orientation & spread size (2 pages) vs. title "A4 portrait" in ID, • master pages merge in APub • vector crop rectangle in APub.

Nevertheless page 1 of the .idml can be used in APub without harm if these issues get ignored & the master page gets avoided for objects in the bleed area – or if they get fixed if required (e.g. if several cover layout variants get created in APub based on this applied master). The mentioned issues might be understood as confusions rather than faults – in my understanding they are quite misleading and should not appear in a file that is meant to be used as a template, starting with White Wall's product title "Exhibition A4 portrait" (implying a page size of 210 x 297 mm) and ending with APubs handling of ID's multi-page spreads in single page documents.

@Dan C, it appears the masking rectangle is APub's workaround/consequence when handling the multi-page master spread of ID to achieve the wanted page dimension. It does not fully work in the spine of the master = the bleed area of the cropped page size.

[MikeW]

I believe the A4 wording applies to the fact that it is for the inside pages being that size. Would I use a different naming scheme? Maybe. 

There is nothing technically incorrect as regards having a two page spread master with only a single page document for a cover. Again, would I make a single page master? Maybe. 

APub's fault was, for the OP,  combining both pages of the spread as a single page. It's not a fault of the template as evidenced by every other application opening it properly. 

[thomaso]

8 hours ago, MikeW said:

I believe the A4 wording applies to the fact that it is for the inside pages being that size.

No, also the inside pages with 205 x 270 mm appear to be closer to "US letter" than to "A4 portrait".

8 hours ago, MikeW said:

There is nothing technically incorrect as regards having a two page spread master with only a single page document for a cover.

It depends how users handle this "Master A". As mentioned, in particular in a template file I'd expect it to be setup unambiguously. The fact that it is setup as 2-page spread in a single page document may lead to issues like in APub, for instances:

[mopperle]

8 hours ago, MikeW said:

I believe the A4 wording applies to the fact that it is for the inside pages being that size. Would I use a different naming scheme? Maybe. 

11 minutes ago, thomaso said:

No, also the inside pages with 205 x 270 mm appear to be closer to "US letter" than to "A4 portrait".

The naming simply applies to the product you have choosen on their Website, so no need to think about a renaming or whatever.

[thomaso]

1 hour ago, mopperle said:

The naming simply applies to the product you have choosen on their Website, so no need to think about a renaming or whatever.

That's why I mentioned the product name before:

>> White Wall's product title "Exhibition A4 portrait" (implying a page size of 210 x 297 mm) <<

None of their product / template or file names referring to a standard format ("A4", "A3") does really match that size, instead, for A3 the page size even differs just with the orientation: "A3 portrait" / "A3 landscape" have different sizes AND even different aspect ratios.

A reason for renaming can be the same that White Wall considered obviously for their square formats: Instead of naming them "A4 Square" / "A3 Square" they chose "Story Square" and "Gallery Square" and avoided to mention any standard page size but simply used "Story" and "Gallery" to differentiate them. So why mentioning a page size standard at all if the terms "Exhibition" and "Portfolio" are used for differentiation anyway?

In other words: White Wall's product/file names cause unnecessary confusion … similar to the page size that prompted YOU to start this thread in the first place: Although page 1 in the .idml template and the .afpub is the required size, you unnecessarily (??) focused on the confusion caused by the master page size.

[MikeW]

3 hours ago, thomaso said:

...

It depends how users handle this "Master A". As mentioned, in particular in a template file I'd expect it to be setup unambiguously. The fact that it is setup as 2-page spread in a single page document may lead to issues like in APub, for instances: ...

The user is only to use the one page provided and not add pages.

As I mentioned, technically there is nothing wrong creating a two-page master and only using a single page for a book cover. I wouldn't likely do it, but there's nothing wrong in making a book cover template that way.

Again, the only error was how APub interpreted the .idml for the OP.

But hey, at least Whitewall's automated system (which is also responsible for the naming scheme) didn't create a 3-page spread that would completely break APub's abilities of opening it.

You and I are likely not going to agree on anything in this thread. So I'll leave it now.

[thomaso]

2 hours ago, MikeW said:

The user is only to use the one page provided and not add pages.

Why this? This sounds like a very strange requirement considering that ID and APub are multi-page apps for layouts and possible layout variations.

Nevertheless, I do not see issues with additional pages (e.g. for layout variants) neither in ID nor APub – as long new pages don't base on the (needless) Master A.

2 hours ago, MikeW said:

You and I are likely not going to agree on anything in this thread.

We agree that…
… page 1 in ID and APub has the required size.
… APubs way to interpret ID's multiple-paged spreads in a non-facing-pages document as merged pages / larger spreads causes issues.
… the Master A (or any master) is more useless than required in this document.
… we would not have created a template this way.

[MikeW]

2 hours ago, thomaso said:

Why this? This sounds like a very strange requirement considering that ID and APub are multi-page apps for layouts and possible layout variations.

Nevertheless, I do not see issues with additional pages (e.g. for layout variants) neither in ID nor APub – as long new pages don't base on the (needless) Master A.

...

Well the user only needs to use the page provided for the proper-sized cover. But yes, if the user desired variations, one can still base it on master-A. It's just that I wouldn't. I would make a copy of the file and use it. In QXP, when I do variants, I sometimes use a separate layout within the same publication. But not always as I rely too much on naming conventions of the files themselves to keep the options straight in my little pea-brain.

2 hours ago, thomaso said:

...

We agree that…
… page 1 in ID and APub has the required size. … 

But it wasn't for the OP. Hence all the back and forth.

[thomaso]

2 hours ago, MikeW said:

But it wasn't for the OP. Hence all the back and forth.

Page 1 had/has the same size to all of us, the OP included. – But the OP inspected the size of the Master page A (without need), whereas you inspected in your first reply the size of the document page 1 (as the relevant page). … Hence my doubts about the quality of the template file. (additionally to APub's page-merge issue)

[MikeW]

20 hours ago, thomaso said:

Page 1 had/has the same size to all of us, the OP included. – But the OP inspected the size of the Master page A (without need), whereas you inspected in your first reply the size of the document page 1 (as the relevant page). … Hence my doubts about the quality of the template file. (additionally to APub's page-merge issue)

Oops. My bad! I hadn't actually noticed that the OP had the master page open.