Reinhard Kotucha <[email protected]> a écrit: > On 2013-12-09 at 09:28:51 +0000, Robin Fairbairns wrote: > > > Patrick Gundlach <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Well, I recently had to repair broken PDF files created by > > > > InDesign. LuaTeX doesn't create invalid PDF. > > > > > > and your point is...? > > > > to respond to the earlier post that claimed commercial products > > dont do things like that, perhaps. > > To be more precise, I tried to make clear that pdfTeX is the first > program that implemented the HZ algorithm *and* produced valid PDF. > One has to take this into account when comparing these programs. > > The HZ algorithm is not more valuable than Microsoft Word's colorful > user interface if the output isn't appropriate. > > BTW, I've seen extremely ugly files created with InDesign. Sure, in > most cases the authors are responsible. Since everybody who owns an > Apple claims to be a designer, no wonder.
Nasty Reinhard :) To play the devil’s advocate: anybody with Linux think they’re a programmer (me included)... > But I encountered many PDF files produced by InDesign which couldn't > be processed properly. Sometimes AR complains, sometimes the PS > interpreter of the printer crashes, sometimes not everything I see in > AR appears in the printed output... I never had the time nor the will > to investigate further. However, a few weeks ago my boss asked me to > repair a broken PDF file produced by InDesign. With PDFtk, > Ghostscript, and Emacs I could fix it in areasonable amount of time. > But I'm still amazed that they introduced such a *stupid* bug. > > If we compare programs we have to compare their output in the first > place. I’d say that’s slightly unfair to InDesign, given that you’re comparing PDFTeX out of the box to InDesign, which is rather, I suppose, equivalent to PDFTeX and a format and a good deal of packages. And you know that creating corrupt PDF is quite possible with bad code in PDFTeX. > I said this because Jan said: > > > 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. > > It's nice that InDesign produces PDFs compatible with various > standards. But it should comply with ISO-32000 at least. It seems > that Adobe isn't aware of it. > > Jan, I'm living in the TeX world for more than two decades and I > believe that I know a little bit about typesetting. If you want to > know what "professional typesetting" stands for then buy a book which > is *not* typeset with TeX. Again, slightly unfair. Most good books are also produced without TeX, and tons of bad books are produced with it. I agree with Hans on that point: the tool is important, but the user is crucial. > There is no "professional typesetting" anymore. In the past > publishers took care of proof-reading and gave the manuscript to a > professional typesetter. > > Nowadays publishers don't care about these things anymore and ask > authors to provide a "camera ready copy". What is "professional > typesetting" then? Sure, if you have an Apple you are a professional > typesetter per se. Same if you're using InDesign. Even if you don't > have the slightest clue about typesetting. To all that I must agree, unfortunately. Last week I had to check the proof of a paper of mine; each time a bit of text was in italics, the first letter was left in roman – and the proof had been done in InDesign. The same publisher – one of the most important in the field, if only because they publish almost anything – has been releasing books with such basic typographic errors for years. > After all, I have the impression that the **de facto** standard in > "professional" typesetting is not InDesign but Microsoft Word. No, the de facto standard is Microsoft Word in the hands of somebody with no clue about typesetting. Here in France, it’s a small miracle when I see an “fi” ligature. Best, Paul
