From: John Hudson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Mar 28 2005 - 18:04:02 CST
Michael Everson wrote:
> I disagree. I typeset a book in Irish, English, and Chinese in InDesign.
> That program is SLOW compared to Quark. I suppose it's grand for
> magazine production with lots of colour illustrations and graphics, but
> Quark is superior for book production. I say this as someone who
> typesets books on a regular basis.
I never made any comment about relative speed. I never said that InDesign or Quark was
better or worse for any given task. What I said, based on the presentation given by Quark
in London, is that there is nothing in their Unicode and OpenType support that is not
identical to what Adobe has done already. If Quark can do it faster, that's surely good,
but it doesn't change the fact that they have not gone beyond the feature functionality of
InDesign. I and others were hoping to see some innovation, something that would push the
competition further, not just keeping pace. There is 'low hanging fruit' out there in
terms of OpenType Layout support: features that Quark 7 has all the necessary architecture
to handle. It wouldn't be difficult for Quark 7 to do more than InDesign has, so this is
why it is disappointing to see them limit themselves to copying Adobe's lead.
> In the short term, that is a lot better than just supporting Mac
> WorldScript in Quark Passport.
No question that it is a huge improvement for Quark. It is just less than they might have
done (and might still do, I suppose, if they take the feedback from Typotechnica seriously).
-- Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC email@example.com Currently reading: A century of philosophy, by Hans Georg Gadamer David Jones: artist and poet, ed. Paul Hills
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 28 2005 - 18:05:17 CST