Craig Ringer wrote: > Gregory Pittman wrote: > >> 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. > > > I'm a bit confused, to be honest. Your message certainly reads to me > as if you're suggesting that they should just send the Scribus doc to > the printer instead of using PDF. I find it difficult to see any other > interpretation. That's not a bad thing, though I don't agree with the > suggestion. However, if that wasn't your intent, I'm a bit confused as > to what was.
I'm so confused by your responses that I just don't know where to even start, so I guess that's the end of it. Greg
