Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

[IDML Implemented] How can I open Indesign (indd and idml) Files in Publisher?


Recommended Posts

On 7/6/2019 at 10:29 PM, fdaly said:

It was a bit like you found a brilliant car, with super gadgets for an unbeatable price and then once you’ve got it, you find that it doesn’t use petrol or battery power so you just have to wait until the company is ready to provide a fuel interface.

No, it is like you buy this nice car and find that it does not have a towing hook to drag all of your old excess package along. 

Just create your publications anew in Publisher, it is not hard and they will be better for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2019 at 1:06 AM, BLKay said:

Until or unless there is software that can batch them. Which is another way to go for Serif. Perhaps a plug in or script for CC and voila. 

See

That script should batch process your INDDs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fixx said:

No, it is like you buy this nice car and find that it does not have a towing hook to drag all of your old excess package along. 

Just create your publications anew in Publisher, it is not hard and they will be better for it.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Staff
3 hours ago, Oval said:

People might mean that this refers to INDD, but it's all about IDML.

OK, I sorted that also and still state this as our postiton. However, no matter how many times we state our position there will still be those who choose to expect INDD and nothing else will do.

I do not think customers are misunderstanding our posts. Picking each one appart as if we have backtracked or misled seems diningenuous.  I think they are just hoping INDD is opened and are not reading things as closely as you are. I will keep correcting any more that are confusing but in my opinion it is not actually helping anyone.

Patrick Connor
Serif Europe Ltd

"There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man. True nobility lies in being superior to your previous self."  W. L. Sheldon

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2019 at 3:18 PM, dcrosby said:

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.

It's nothing to do with "level of entitlement". There are certain basic expectations for any new product and at the minimum, it should be able to read existing files and not have to create them from scratch again.

Maybe you're happy with a new product that can't read the interchange file format from the industry-leading product, but I'm not. It's a serious oversight to release version 1 after significant beta test, without this item. I imagine someone creating a new word processor app would have to ensure it was able to read MS Word documents, and this is no different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, fdaly said:

can't read the interchange file format

InDesign Markup Language (IDML) was developed (by Adobe for Adobe) to allow 'older' versions of InDesign to open a file made on a 'newer' version of InDesign. It was not meant to be used by other software from other companies. It is not like TIFF or JPEG or TXT or CSV.

Mac Pro (Late 2013) Mac OS 12.7.4 
Affinity Designer 2.4.0 | Affinity Photo 2.4.0 | Affinity Publisher 2.4.0 | 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

15 hours ago, fdaly said:

It's nothing to do with "level of entitlement". There are certain basic expectations for any new product and at the minimum, it should be able to read existing files and not have to create them from scratch again.

Maybe you're happy with a new product that can't read the interchange file format from the industry-leading product, but I'm not. It's a serious oversight to release version 1 after significant beta test, without this item. I imagine someone creating a new word processor app would have to ensure it was able to read MS Word documents, and this is no different.

Well thats crap.
1. IDML was developed from Adobe for Adobe, not for a third company to "interchange" file format
2. not a serious oversight in my eyes, since I am pretty sure, that it is a really difficult (if ever possible) task to do that 100%
3. I seriously doubt Adobe would do that, if they were in this position ;-)
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Pixelkobold said:

Well thats crap.
1. IDML was developed from Adobe for Adobe, not for a third company to "interchange" file format
2. not a serious oversight in my eyes, since I am pretty sure, that it is a really difficult (if ever possible) task to do that 100%
3. I seriously doubt Adobe would do that, if they were in this position ;-)
 

Here's a quote from Adobe's IDML cookbook:

How can IDML be used outside of InDesign?
IDML was designed to facilitate the inspection and construction of InDesign content outside of InDesign. The SDK provides many examples, written in both Java and ActionScript 3.0/Air, that demonstrate how IDML can be used outside of InDesign. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, fdaly said:

It's nothing to do with "level of entitlement". There are certain basic expectations for any new product and at the minimum, it should be able to read existing files and not have to create them from scratch again.

Maybe you're happy with a new product that can't read the interchange file format from the industry-leading product, but I'm not. It's a serious oversight to release version 1 after significant beta test, without this item. I imagine someone creating a new word processor app would have to ensure it was able to read MS Word documents, and this is no different.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, dcrosby said:

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.

I have to say, that despite my earlier comments, I agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, just wondering if anyone has a workaround to open IDML files in Affinity perhaps using another (free) program to convert it to a format Affinity can open?

We sometimes get sent IDML files from partners but would like to ditch Adobe.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wag said:

Hi, just wondering if anyone has a workaround to open IDML files in Affinity perhaps using another (free) program to convert it to a format Affinity can open?

I think PDF is currently the only option. If you receive an IDML file, you would still need some other program to be able to open an IDML and export to PDF, which besides InDesign itself, I don't really know what is out there. If someone else has a suggestion, I too would like to know. But in the end, it would have to be converted to PDF.

For my part, if I am moving a publication to new software, my main concern is to be able to get to the assets, particularly the text, but I don't keep the layout; I recreate it afresh in the new software. Otherwise I am left with all kinds of inconsistency. For some context, years ago we used Quark XPress, and we still have a number of files in that format. InDesign itself can open the older Quark files, and the more recent (but still old) Quark files were converted by Markzware to InDesign. When we have a converted file, I always create a fresh InDesign file and manually move over different elements, then I archive the converted file.

When Publisher is able to release IDML import, I will surely do the same. Either I will keep printing from PDF, maybe importing that to Publisher to tweak the odd error we didn't catch the first time, or else import the IDML into Publisher only so I can manually move the content to a new Publisher file. I generally find it easier to work that way than to try to fix all the inconsistencies left by conversion.

I hope people won't have the unrealistic expectation that INDL import will have as satisfactory results as though it were opening a native format. I expect it will be just as messy as Quark to InDesign conversion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have skimmed through most of this discussion so I'm not sure anyone has already asked or answered but is there any LEGAL (not TECHNICAL) reason for not supporting importing and/or exporting INDD files?

architect student (5/10) · designer · developer · geek
Affinity Publisher 2.1.1 / Affinity Designer 2.1.1 / Affinity Photo 2.1.1
Windows 11 Pro #22H2 / Dell G15 AMD Ryzen 5 32GB RAM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Lmpessoa said:

I have skimmed through most of this discussion so I'm not sure anyone has already asked or answered but is there any LEGAL (not TECHNICAL) reason for not supporting importing and/or exporting INDD files?

No, there's nothing illegal as regards importing InDesign native files. Just huge, ongoing technical issues. Which is why IDML, which is documented, will be used instead. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by epo
After thought.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, epo said:

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.

Them's fightin' words right there, lol.

Seriously though, I always got weird errors converting Xpress to InDesign. When it worked I considered myself fortunate but a lot of the time it made more sense to redo a smaller document in INDD, especially if it were one that would be updated frequently or used as a template. Otherwise, the errors just got passed down the line job after job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, epo said:

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.

I do agree with your observations but not with your concluding recommendation.

I somewhat agree with your point of "cheapskate entitlement," though I personally wouldn't word it as strongly myself; just an opinion. I also agree that expectations will be unrealistically high with regard to the quality of the import.

However, IDML import is still very welcome with all of that in mind. I do not have any illusions that I can simply import and pick up where I left off, but rather, I do want a way to get at the assets of old files on occasion without needing an Adobe CC subscription. I would only use them to copy over manually into a freshly created Publisher document. This is the exact same process that I have used often with converting from Quark to InDesign. No I don't use the imported file as is (not even with tweaks), but yes, import was still very useful. Otherwise, I would be locked out of the files completely.

I think we have a parallel now with PDF import: it is far from perfect, and I believe it never can be all that what we could wish. Yet Serif did not make a mistake to include it, and it is very useful if one can take it for what it is. I am glad Serif did not drop the idea because some people would have unrealistic expectations of PDF import.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, MikeW said:

No, there's nothing illegal as regards importing InDesign native files.

Good to know.

architect student (5/10) · designer · developer · geek
Affinity Publisher 2.1.1 / Affinity Designer 2.1.1 / Affinity Photo 2.1.1
Windows 11 Pro #22H2 / Dell G15 AMD Ryzen 5 32GB RAM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.