On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 08:12:31AM +0100, Christoph Schäfer wrote: > Hi Khaled, > > Am Donnerstag, 11. März 2010 06:23:51 schrieb Khaled Hosny: > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:38:43PM +0100, Christoph Schäfer wrote: > > > Am Mittwoch, 10. März 2010 22:56:54 schrieb Khaled Hosny: > > > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:51:51PM -0600, Barry Schwartz wrote: > > > > > Khaled Hosny <khaledho...@eglug.org> skribis: > > > > > > But how OFLB is going to fix this, I don't think you are suggesting > > > > > > that we (OFLB community, whatever it means) rewrite most of free > > > > > > software text layout stack (and funny "DTP" applications) to > > > > > > support advanced typography. So, I think you mean writing smaller > > > > > > applications that are are able to really utilize our free fonts, > > > > > > but I then fail to see what is the use of such applications if can > > > > > > fit in a larger ecosystem and work flow? > > > > > > > > > > That would not be the way to go. If it is going to be done at all it > > > > > has to be by getting other projects to fix their stuff in exchange > > > > > for synergistic bundling. Right now it is as if we had a Firefox with > > > > > mostly non-functional add-on support, along with a handful of sites > > > > > to which Firefox didn't link that offered add-ons that depended on > > > > > Firefox features that always crashed. > > > > > > > > I do understand this. But upstream developers are just not interested > > > > (a patch to implement proper, TeX-like, H&J for Pango have been ignored > > > > for years, all requests and offers to help implementing OpenType > > > > support for Scribus have been ignored, etc.) and I don't see this > > > > changing. > > > > > > With all due respect: Can you substantiate this assertion? I didn't find > > > a single message from you to one of the Scribus MLs regarding the issue > > > (although I may have overlooked it). > > > > I did (I'm not sure was it on IRC or on mailing list, it was like 3 > > years ago), I was even asked to provide some sort of test suit that I > > sent, but my mails went unanswered, IIRC. And after all years, the > > situation is the same; every time one asks about Arabic (or Indic, or > > even OpenType for LGC scripts), we get a "we will do it after X release" > > answer, where X kept changing. > > OK, you obviously have an axe to grind, although I think this is not > necessary. If I may ask: where did you send your test suite? 3 years ago is a > long time. > > Just to give you some background: The Scribus Team is _very_ small, which is > why we welcome every contribution and suggestion. Since Scribus is a program > that is expected to work on Linux, different Unix flavours, Windows, Mac OS X > and even OS/2, it's a bit hard to use libraries that we'd have to port to > some of these systems in addition to the Scribus code and which may or not be > working with Qt. > > More importantly, we have two font and text layout experts, the first one > being currently unable to work on the code due to reasons I cannot describe > without violating his privacy, the other one being swamped with his job. > Developer #2 is nevertheless working on a complete rewrite of the text system > that will make enhancements like the one you need easier. It's just his wont > to drop his rewrites in one go (that's when we usually announce the risk of a > great breakage in SVN on the ML). > > That being said, I really think it would be more constructive to participate > in a discussion with the developers instead of denigrating them on another > ML. > > Besides: If it's not a coincidence of identical names, the only proof of any > offer to contribute from your side I could find was an application for GSoC > 2007, but for something completely unrelated to typographical improvements. > > > > > > Even if I didn't, it is not like we are talking about some obscure > > feature Scribus is lacking, we are talking about a DTP system that can't > > do any sort of proper text layout, no ligatures, no small caps no proper > > (i.e. that actually work) H&J, > > If I may ask: When did you try Scribus for the last time? It's true that the > OTF "Auto" features aren't available yet (simply due to the temporary loss of > the developer who was working on it), but the rest is there. > > > I'm not even talking about the complete > > lack of any non-LGC support, fine typographic control > > What kind of "fine typographic control" are you missing exactly? > > > , or even lack of > > other fundamental features like footnotes! > > Errm, footnotes is a page layout feature, quite unrelated to typography, and > it's more or less restricted to scientific texts. Most DTP programs have no > footnote feature at all (Adobe has added it to InDesign only recently, and > the implementation is quite clumsy). So I guess what you want is a word > processor+*TeX+DTP. And speaking of footnotes, we found that *TeX's footnote > options didn't cover all use cases (unless one uses some ugly hacks or > workarounds), so we decided to prepare the text engine for _all_ use cases. > This is _not_ trivial, especially if you consider that Scribus cannot use any > *TeX code directly (licensing issues, using C++ and all ...). > > And another hint: Guess why Adobe, with its army of developers, is still > selling and developing FrameMaker alongside InDesign? It seems the > combination you'd like to have isn't that easy to create. > > > > > What is the point of starting yet another useless discussion if Scribus > > team shows no interest in such fundamental features, > > 1) See above. > > 2) Complaining in forums other than the ones that actually matter will > certainly not help to improve anything. > > > the fact that they > > ever released such a deficient application is ridicules, even > > handicapped tools like troff does better. > > program where you can only do ASCII art, > > OK, now I got it. Obviously you have > > 1) an axe to grind (see above) > > 2) a hard time acknowledging that developers can't read your mind (because > you > only seem to have had a short IRC conversation 3 years ago) or ... > > 3) ... they may even disagree with your approach. > > 4) no clue about pre-press. Some of the restrictions (and the undeniable > shortcomings) are actually based on the premise that Scribus output must not > fail in a professional print workflow, no matter whether offset or digital. > > > but it does support RGB, CMYK, > > color profiles and importing/exporting two dozens of image file formats. > > Exactly. It even supports spot colours and provides great colour management, > isn't that cool? ;) Even better: The next iteration of Scribus will import a > lot of proprietary vector formats (do you know the difference between a > bitmap image and a vector drawing? If you don't, please stop ridiculing > hard-working developers for reverse-engineering and implementing import > filters for file formats that are more or less industry standards). This is, > of course, irrelevant if you have no clue about page layout for printing (as > opposed to word processing or document creation à la *TeX). > > Btw, I _love_ *Tex. I wrote my PhD with LyX and later LaTeX, but it's a > different kind of animal. The day you can show me an issue of TIME or VOGUE > created with TeX by regular users I may concede that you have a point ;) > > > > > In contrast, the archaic, +25 years old TeX is able to cope with modern > > technology, and have people who do actually care about typography. Last > > month I was able to convince ConTeXt developer to implement support for > > OpenType Optical margins (opbd) feature, though there isn't any font > > that implement it (or any other system, free or proprietary, that > > support it), but I need it for my Arabic fonts, and it take a few mail > > exchanges to get it. > > Since you never seemed to try to establish a communication line with Scribus > (again, I may be wrong, but I didn't find anything that would support your > allegations), this seems to be a dead end. > > Khaled, why don't you send an emotional (if necessary) rant to the Scribus ML > and offer solutions if you need a DTP program that fulfills your needs? > Ranting on another ML certainly doesn't help! > > Please feel free to contact me off-list!
To make it short as it is going really off-topic, and sorry I can't comment on each point. I realised earlier that Scribus is not the tool I'm looking for; when I typeset text, text is my highest priority, but it is not the case with Scribus. Life is too short, and I don't have time to argue with the developers of every tool that I want to use, so I've to choose the closest to my needs. I might not have any clue about printing, but I got every thing I needed for my book (including spot colors and overprinting) depending solely on TeX and the book have been printed and distributed (it is not really my book, it was a collective work released and CC but I don't want to advertise it here). Noting is perfect, and TeX is certainly isn't, but a 90% working solution is better than 0% one. "Denigrating" wasn't in any way my intention, it was a "funny" remark showing how disappointed am I with all FOSS text layout stack and Scribus in particular. I'm not asking anyone to do anything for me, I already invested my time in TeX and unlikely to change, so even if Scribus magically became a usable tool for my need, I'm not going to use it, though I'll be happy that I can point people to it. Regards, Khaled -- Khaled Hosny Arabic localiser and member of Arabeyes.org team Free font developer
