Craig Ringer wrote: > Gregory Pittman wrote: > >> Let me offer this observation. If there is a more or less absolute >> need for efficiency of this type, consider that all of the pertinent >> text information is really contained in the Scribus .sla file. This >> file can be transmitted with a lot less overhead, especially if >> you're just talking about text. There are only two requirements on >> the receiving end -- a working copy of Scribus compatible with the >> Scribus file type (1.2.x vs 1.3.x), and the correct fonts (though >> subs can be done in a pinch). > > > Honestly, I don't think that's realistic. PDF is a widely used and > supported standard, and increasingly it's all that printers want to > accept. The printers I deal with don't accept QuarkXPress or InDesign > documents anymore (good on 'em); the chances of a printer taking > Scribus docs are near zero. > I was trying to get a sense of where the question was coming from, and not suggesting an alternative to PDF. I don't think Phil was suggesting modifying the PDF format, or suggesting that printers would accept anything else, and it's pretty clear why Scribus makes PDFs. But, a small example of what I was referring to: I just converted a 23K all-text single page .sla file into a 780K PDF. For transmission and information purposes, the two files would be identical for someone who has Scribus. I do quite a bit with LaTeX, but for archiving purposes I just keep the .tex file; it has everything I need for that purpose.
Greg
