On 2013-12-08 Khaled Hosny wrote: > On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 07:36:26PM +0100, Jan Tosovsky wrote: > > On 2013-12-06 Khaled Hosny wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 11:01:44PM +0100, Jan Tosovsky wrote: > > > > > > > > typographic outputs comparable with Adobe InDesign, but with no > > > > costs. While > > > > > > TeX predates InDesign by 30 years (not counting prototype > > > versions of TeX), so it is the other way around. > > > > In this particular case I meant availability of microtypography > > features like protrusion/expansion. > > Even that was introduced in PDFTeX which was released long before > InDesign that were first released in 2002.
When I compare InDesign and LuaTeX, I compare the CURRENT feature set. It may seem unfair, but who cares the history... InDesign is currently de facto standard in professional typesetting - it offers excellent typography, support for Unicode, Open Type features, color management, produces PDFs compatible with various standards - all this in a handy GUI. Many typesetters or graphic designers never tried anything else. It works, it is compatible with print shop workflows, when any help is needed, there is a huge user base... So why to change this tool... So comparing LuaTeX to InDesign is, from my POV, easily recognizable at least to this group. And mentioning some features not available in InDesign (automated, non-gui (commandline) processing) could bring more their attention to TeX-solutions for specific scenarios. But from other responses this should be emphasised rather on format pages (e.g. ConTeXt), not engine ones. So sorry for this noise. Jan
