[OT] Is Indesign CS 2 better than ConTeXt ?

[OT] Is Indesign CS 2 better than ConTeXt ?

[luigi scarso]

OK, it is a big OFF TOPIC.
Some notes
* the Elements of Typographic Style was made with Indesign (true or
false?) and the only
words about TeX is an url (true or false ?)
* indesign eat xml
* there is an indesign server; maybe actually too much complex, but in
the future?
* I don't know if IDCS2 has some programming capabilities like ConTeXt
Ofcourse :
*IDCS2 come from Adobe, so it has the feature of latest pdf spec.;
*IDCS2 is WYSIWYG
* (...possibly many others...)

But there is one important point:
Can IDCS2 be view as candidate for automatic typesetting (xml->IDCS2->pdf)  ?

luigi

Re: [OT] Is Indesign CS 2 better than ConTeXt ?

[Steve Grathwohl]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1114 bytes --]

On 5/25/06, luigi scarso <luigi.scarso@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> OK, it is a big OFF TOPIC.
> Some notes
> * the Elements of Typographic Style was made with Indesign (true or
> false?) and the only
> words about TeX is an url (true or false ?)
> * indesign eat xml
> * there is an indesign server; maybe actually too much complex, but in
> the future?
> * I don't know if IDCS2 has some programming capabilities like ConTeXt
> Ofcourse :
> *IDCS2 come from Adobe, so it has the feature of latest pdf spec.;
> *IDCS2 is WYSIWYG
> * (...possibly many others...)
>
> But there is one important point:
> Can IDCS2 be view as candidate for automatic typesetting
> (xml->IDCS2->pdf)  ?
>
> luigi


As a matter of fact, I'm looking into XML --> InDesign myself (we're
implementing an XML workflow in journals production here at Duke Press. I'll
let you know what I find off list (or on if anyone else is interested.

Steve



-- 
Steve Grathwohl || Digital Content Developer
Duke University Press Journals || +1 919 687 3634
905 W Main St || Durham, NC 27701 USA
sgrathwohl@dukeupress.edu

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1490 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 139 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ntg-context mailing list
ntg-context@ntg.nl
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context

Re: [OT] Is Indesign CS 2 better than ConTeXt ?

[Henning Hraban Ramm]

Am 2006-05-25 um 13:52 schrieb luigi scarso:

> OK, it is a big OFF TOPIC.
> Some notes
> * the Elements of Typographic Style was made with Indesign (true or
> false?) and the only
> words about TeX is an url (true or false ?)
> * indesign eat xml
> * there is an indesign server; maybe actually too much complex, but in
> the future?
> * I don't know if IDCS2 has some programming capabilities like ConTeXt
> Ofcourse :
> *IDCS2 come from Adobe, so it has the feature of latest pdf spec.;
> *IDCS2 is WYSIWYG
> * (...possibly many others...)
>
> But there is one important point:
> Can IDCS2 be view as candidate for automatic typesetting (xml- 
> >IDCS2->pdf)  ?

At my former employer, a regional daily newspaper, we used IDCS2 in  
an automated workflow for simple ads, not even via XML, but  
controlling ID on a WinXP machine via VB/COM, because we needed a  
*completely* automated solution.
I can't tell you much about our application, because my colleague did  
most of that job (I only delivered the data from another process).

At my actual employer I use ID's XML cpabilities to typeset an event  
calendar in a city magazine from a database. With a set of well  
designed style templates the whole thing needs nearly no manual  
tweaking (only with some ID bugs).

But at the moment I'm planning a simple automated CD cover maker for  
our backup CDs - using ConTeXt behind a Python GUI...

Greetlings from Lake Constance!
Hraban
---
http://www.fiee.net/texnique/
http://contextgarden.net
http://www.cacert.org (I'm an assurer)

Re: [OT] Is Indesign CS 2 better than ConTeXt ?

[Hans Hagen]

Henning Hraban Ramm wrote:
> Am 2006-05-25 um 13:52 schrieb luigi scarso:
>
>   
>> OK, it is a big OFF TOPIC.
>> Some notes
>> * the Elements of Typographic Style was made with Indesign (true or
>> false?) and the only
>> words about TeX is an url (true or false ?)
>> * indesign eat xml
>> * there is an indesign server; maybe actually too much complex, but in
>> the future?
>> * I don't know if IDCS2 has some programming capabilities like ConTeXt
>> Ofcourse :
>> *IDCS2 come from Adobe, so it has the feature of latest pdf spec.;
>> *IDCS2 is WYSIWYG
>> * (...possibly many others...)
>>
>> But there is one important point:
>> Can IDCS2 be view as candidate for automatic typesetting (xml- 
>>     
>>> IDCS2->pdf)  ?
>>>       
>
> At my former employer, a regional daily newspaper, we used IDCS2 in  
> an automated workflow for simple ads, not even via XML, but  
> controlling ID on a WinXP machine via VB/COM, because we needed a  
> *completely* automated solution.
> I can't tell you much about our application, because my colleague did  
> most of that job (I only delivered the data from another process).
>
> At my actual employer I use ID's XML cpabilities to typeset an event  
> calendar in a city magazine from a database. With a set of well  
> designed style templates the whole thing needs nearly no manual  
> tweaking (only with some ID bugs).
>
> But at the moment I'm planning a simple automated CD cover maker for  
> our backup CDs - using ConTeXt behind a Python GUI...
>   
i always tend to say ... "the problem does not change", so, if figuring out some clever tricks to get something done, then using id or tex makes no difference: one has to figure out the best way

what you use depends on taste; we've had (potential) customers who prefered 3b2 (argument: there's a big company behind it, but in the meantime they were sole twice, and the number of people who can program in (i think their special kind of javascript) interface is also limited; apart from pricing ... 

concerning id ... it's non free, never sure what happens in ten years (adobe dropped pagemaker, (i'm told) messed up frame, so ...) and in order to process older docs will run into compatibility problems some day; supporting pdf trickery is not a real argument, since my experience is that tex is always first in supporting new features; however, adobe is the typesetter company favorite, if only because they use more adobe things (and also because they can keep changing per page which is more proffitable than change for a simple stylesheet once); and ... publishers don't really care about costs anyway so ...) 

(occassionally we hear stories of failed tryout with 3b2, id, quark, etc while tex base solutions did the job (end kept doing it) for years already; i think that one has to decide for each situation anew) 

tex will always be a niche product 

Hans  

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
              Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
     tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                             | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [OT] Is Indesign CS 2 better than ConTeXt ?

[luigi scarso]

> i always tend to say ... "the problem does not change", so, if figuring out some clever tricks to get something done, then using id or tex makes no difference: one has to figure out the best way
There are a (big) difference: a (my) solution in context costs 100€, a
solutions with IDCS2 cost 10€ , because there are more IDCS2
programmers than TeX programmers.

> concerning id ...
Does IDCS2 offers a better ways to break a paragraph into lines ?
pdfetex has space between words, and hz; it does not consider space
between letters of a word
IDCS2 has 'buttons' (my employer ask me yesterday 'Can you put buttons
on context?''
maybe exa is a way to 'put buttons' on context)
>
> (occassionally we hear stories of failed tryout with 3b2, id, quark, etc while tex base solutions did the job (end kept doing it) for years already; i think that one has to decide for each situation anew)
Another story: I'm using context from 2002 in a production env. for
automatic pricelist and labels. Every job with 'from XML/TXT to PDF'
that I have uses context.
(also: dreams come true)
Why ? Because it's a quick way for us to make a pdf from xml/txt
ready for digital printing.


> tex will always be a niche product
Why ?

But none say a word about Elements of Typographic Style

Re: [OT] Is Indesign CS 2 better than ConTeXt ?

[Hans Hagen]

luigi scarso wrote:
>
>
> But none say a word about Elements of Typographic Style
>   
i don't have that one -) 

but 'digital typography' was done in word and looks ok as well 

(just as docs done with tex can look bad -) 

Hans 


-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
              Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
     tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                             | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [OT] Is Indesign CS 2 better than ConTeXt ?

[luigi scarso]

> i don't have that one -)
You must buy it; it's like your "style.pdf"
>
> but 'digital typography' was done in word and looks ok as well
I must buy it

Re: [OT] Is Indesign CS 2 better than ConTeXt ?

[luigi scarso]

On 5/26/06, Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> wrote:
> luigi scarso wrote:
> >
> >
> > But none say a word about Elements of Typographic Style
> >
> i don't have that one -)
>
> but 'digital typography' was done in word and looks ok as well
>
Ok, I have it: Digital Typography -- Donald E. Knuth ---
At page 671 (Index), I see
Hagen, Johannes, 628-629
At page 628 I see
Hans Hagen:  But ....
So Johannes => Hans  :) wow !

But It seems to me that this book was made with TeX, not word .....
maybe I have the wrong book ?

luigi

Re: [OT] Is Indesign CS 2 better than ConTeXt ?

[Hans Hagen]

luigi scarso wrote:
> On 5/26/06, Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> wrote:
>   
>> luigi scarso wrote:
>>     
>>> But none say a word about Elements of Typographic Style
>>>
>>>       
>> i don't have that one -)
>>
>> but 'digital typography' was done in word and looks ok as well
>>
>>     
> Ok, I have it: Digital Typography -- Donald E. Knuth ---
> At page 671 (Index), I see
> Hagen, Johannes, 628-629
> At page 628 I see
> Hans Hagen:  But ....
> So Johannes => Hans  :) wow !
>   

i was refering to Rubinsteins digital typography, but Knuths book is 
quite enjoyable too; my guess is that he did it in \TeX -)


Hans

Re: [OT] Is Indesign CS 2 better than ConTeXt ?

[luigi scarso]

> i was refering to Rubinsteins digital typography,
good, another book from your personal collection (how many others ?)

>but Knuths book is
> quite enjoyable too; my guess is that he did it in \TeX -)
Yes , but not of-course.
I think that Knuth can be the only one who can write about TeX and METAFONT
\emphtf{without} use at all \TeX

Re: [OT] Is Indesign CS 2 better than ConTeXt ?

[Nikolai Weibull]

On 5/26/06, Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> wrote:

> concerning id ... it's non free, never sure what happens in ten years (adobe dropped pagemaker, (i'm told) messed up frame, so ...) and in order to process older docs will run into compatibility problems some day; supporting pdf trickery is not a real argument, since my experience is that tex is always first in supporting new features; however, adobe is the typesetter company favorite, if only because they use more adobe things (and also because they can keep changing per page which is more proffitable than change for a simple stylesheet once); and ... publishers don't really care about costs anyway so ...)

I'd just like to add that InDesign is often misused by its users, so
don't expect other people to use InDesign like you think you will.  I
work at a company that does translations, and, for us, dealing with
InDesign documents is about the most painful job there is.  Sure, the
documents may look good, but the means to getting the documents are
often not justifiable.  But I guess it's more of an issue of the users
not knowing how to use their software than there being a problem with
the software itself.

To that I'd like to add that I really don't like WYSIWYG because it's
rarely true.  And if you want to do professional work you really want
something as flexible as TeX.  Also, TeX scales really well, from
small pamphlet-like documents to large books.  The same can't be said
for InDesign.

  nikolai

Re: [OT] Is Indesign CS 2 better than ConTeXt ?

[John R. Culleton]

On Thursday 25 May 2006 07:52, luigi scarso wrote:
> OK, it is a big OFF TOPIC.
> Some notes
> * the Elements of Typographic Style was made with Indesign (true or
> false?) and the only
> words about TeX is an url (true or false ?)
> * indesign eat xml
> * there is an indesign server; maybe actually too much complex, but in
> the future?
> * I don't know if IDCS2 has some programming capabilities like ConTeXt
> Ofcourse :
> *IDCS2 come from Adobe, so it has the feature of latest pdf spec.;
> *IDCS2 is WYSIWYG
> * (...possibly many others...)
>
> But there is one important point:
> Can IDCS2 be view as candidate for automatic typesetting (xml->IDCS2->pdf) 
> ?
>
InDesign is partly based on TeX, and can yield fine results. But
it is not free of problems. It is, like most commercial and some
Open Source products, page oriented instead of document oriented.
ID shows its feet of clay when a document that is already
completed needs to be altered. Please see the archives of
Pub-Forum and the threads titled: "Another Indesign question:
copyfitting."

TeX is hardly perfect. But every problem discussed on that
rather long thread is a non-problem in TeX.  There is a lack of
flexiblity with ID that I found rather shocking. 

My advice: look before you leap. 
> luigi
> _______________________________________________
> ntg-context mailing list
> ntg-context@ntg.nl
> http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context

-- 
John Culleton
Books with answers to marketing and publishing questions:
http://wexfordpress.com/tex/shortlist.pdf

Book coaches, consultants and packagers:
http://wexfordpress.com/tex/packagers.pdf

Re: [OT] Is Indesign CS 2 better than ConTeXt ?

[Idris Samawi Hamid]

Hi John,

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 10:33:10 -0600, John R. Culleton  
<john@wexfordpress.com> wrote:

> InDesign is partly based on TeX, and can yield fine results. But
> it is not free of problems. It is, like most commercial and some
> Open Source products, page oriented instead of document oriented.

Could you explain this distinction a bit more? i get the general idea but  
would love to have more details.

> ID shows its feet of clay when a document that is already
> completed needs to be altered. Please see the archives of
> Pub-Forum and the threads titled: "Another Indesign question:
> copyfitting."

Could you post a link to this thread? Putting the thread title into google  
did not get me anywhere :-)

Best
Idris

-- 
Professor Idris Samawi Hamid
Department of Philosophy
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Re: [OT] Is Indesign CS 2 better than ConTeXt ?

[luigi scarso]

On 7/1/06, John R. Culleton <john@wexfordpress.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 25 May 2006 07:52, luigi scarso wrote:
> > OK, it is a big OFF TOPIC.
> > *IDCS2 is WYSIWYG
> > * (...possibly many others...)
Perhaps OpenType support is better in ID than Context, but actually I
don't know exactly
what is the state of OT in Context.

luigi

Re: [OT] Is Indesign CS 2 better than ConTeXt ?

[Hans Hagen]

luigi scarso wrote:
> On 7/1/06, John R. Culleton <john@wexfordpress.com> wrote:
>   
>> On Thursday 25 May 2006 07:52, luigi scarso wrote:
>>     
>>> OK, it is a big OFF TOPIC.
>>> *IDCS2 is WYSIWYG
>>> * (...possibly many others...)
>>>       
> Perhaps OpenType support is better in ID than Context, but actually I
> don't know exactly
> what is the state of OT in Context.
>   
better ask what the state of open type in pdftex is ... end of year it's 
there

Hans