On Saturday 14 May 2005 20:41, Gregory Pittman wrote: > Craig Bradney wrote: > > You dont see many, if any, > >closed or open apps having import filters for future versions. > > On the other hand, even now (and probably in the future), 1.3x+ > will be able to import 1.2x and below -- why should this be a > one-way street? > > >If you create a doc in 1.3, why would you want to even open it in > > 1.2.x? > > Here is a practical scenario: I have 1.3x, my friend has 1.2.2 (or > lower). We are trying to collaborate. I send him my file, but he > can't open it. I try to get him to upgrade, and like many, he > can't seem to figure out why he can't make the new version work. > Variation: I'm on vacation, and would like to tweak a Scribus file > on an old machine I have that has Scribus on it. Uh, oh. It's > 1.2.2, and I have no internet access.
Simple for the moment, both use 1.2.x. I've even run 1.3, 1.2.1, 1.2.2cvs and 0.8 at the same time for testing :-) > > Scenario 2: I have been working with Scribus a long time. I spent > a lot of time in the past putting together something I saved in > 1.1.x format, and rather than redo that (I'm not even sure what was > there), I'd like to load this into my 1.5.x Scribus, but it says > "unrecognized format." > Not likely: Well, today's 1.2.2cvs loads a a fairly complex doc from 0.5.5 perfectly. This has color management tags too. > I've used, for example, Wordperfect, for many years on different > architectures, yet Wordperfect seems to be able to import ages old > versions of files, even though sometimes you need to help it > recognize them. > What *is* different is the level of complexity inside a DTP app. Plus, this does not account for the level of precision needed/expected in a DTP app. Scribus 1.3.x moving forward will become more complex over time - you can bet on it. > What I think it comes down to is the issue of > intentionally/unintentionally setting up barriers to the use of > (and happiness with) Scribus. A backup plan can always be to at > least have a parsable format so that some utility can help with > problems, and maybe even yield unanticipated benefits. > Oh, we certainly do recognize this. No intentional barriers are intended. Just the going from 1.3+ backsaving to < 1.2.x is not a high priority IMNSHO. Peter
