If 1.4.n had PDFX-1a support, 1.5.n wouldn't be needed. For me, at least ;)
-- Ciao Richard Foley Supporting Naked Activities http://www.naktiv.net On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 08:57:08AM -0400, Gregory Pittman wrote: > On 04/07/2014 08:13 AM, Peter Nermander wrote: > >>I did not notice the change at first, as I had *assumed* the two versions > >>of > >>the same program would not behave differently, and sent the file to the > >> > >That's not a very good assumption to do. What if an older version of a > >program has a bug affecting how the final result looks? Should the > >developers leave that bug in place to make sure older documents don't > >change? I think it's better they fix the bug, even if it means it will > >"break" a lot of older documents. > > > > > Sometimes, it's not necessarily a bug, per se, but what we have seen > is some alteration or tweaking of how text frames handle text, which > can affect how much text fits into a frame and perhaps line breaks. > > This having been said, it might be conceivable to adjust various > settings in Advanced Settings, such as word tracking to try to > compensate. > > There is some news coming out of LGM, which should be seen more > officially soon, that there are now plans to come out with an > "official unstable" 1.5.0 in a couple of months or so, which will > allow more users to have access to it, especially those who do not > compile Scribus. As the designation implies, it will be understood > that not all features in 1.5.0 will be fully operational and free > from bugs, but it will allow more widespread access to things like > export to PDFX-1a. With some caution, it may allow some to do their > primary work in 1.5.0 to avoid problems as described here. > > Greg > > ___ > Scribus Mailing List: scribus at lists.scribus.net > Edit your options or unsubscribe: > http://lists.scribus.net/mailman/listinfo/scribus > See also: > http://wiki.scribus.net > http://forums.scribus.net
