Jump to content
Gabe Logan

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Latest releases on each platform 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.


MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2012) Mac OS 10.12.6 || Mac Pro (Late 2013) Mac OS 10.14.5

Affinity Designer 1.7.2 | Affinity Photo 1.7.2 | Affinity Publisher 1.7.2 | Affinity Designer Beta 1.7.2.2 | Affinity Photo Beta 1.7.2.151 | Affinity Publisher Beta 1.7.2.458

Share this post


Link to post
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 ;-)
 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Affinity series is quite professional. And has some sympathy.

At the moment i miss only two things: the idml import and a good EPS import, like photoshop does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Win10(1903)Home / Photo / Designer / Publisher & latest (beta) versions

Share this post


Link to post
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 · designer · developer · geek
Affinity Designer 1.7.1 / Affinity Publisher 1.7.1
Windows 10 Pro, version 1903, Build 18362.145

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would pay for an idml converter if it is a standalone app or a plugin.

Sure Affinity will bundle this later as an argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, MikeW said:

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

Good to know.


architect · designer · developer · geek
Affinity Designer 1.7.1 / Affinity Publisher 1.7.1
Windows 10 Pro, version 1903, Build 18362.145

Share this post


Link to post
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).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CarlM said:

...If in the process an IDML converter is part of the deal then fine. If not then live with it...

Serif has already stated they will add IDML import. So it's not an if, just a when.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MikeW said:

Serif has already stated they will add IDML import. So it's not an if, just a when.

Agreed. I meant to write "If not yet." I should proof read before hitting Submit :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×