[Scribus] RE: Scribus and Imposition

Craig Bradney cbradney
Thu Apr 1 13:41:39 CEST 2004

On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 13:25, linuxlingam wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 04:56, Alastair Robinson wrote:
> [snip]
> > BTW - not having used either, can you explain where presswise and trapwise 
> > were deficient?  (Nothing like learning from others' mistakes :))
> > 
> > All the best,
> it was a 'broken' piece of software, imho. its output to film or plate
> had registration errors, moire errors, and other critical issues. stuff
> to do with its postscript parsing. many such things. imho, it is not
> important to dwell on its problems, but to understand deeply what is
> really required in such a tool, and then work towards it with a fresh
> mind. after all, the domain of imposition is centuries old. all the
> underlying technologies such as postscript, are mature.
> i also feel we should not consider whether it should be plug-in, a
> script, a module, a stand-alone, a fork, (like gimp-film) or whatever,
> until a detailed spec sheet is created. that will give us our answer.

IMNSHO.. Personally, I'd support a plugin or addon, and/or modifications
to the base code. No fork.

Simply.. we have a good base to start with, and no real reason for
people to fork away unless you dont like the main development team. 

Franz has (and the rest of us have) always been pretty flexible, fast
acting and understanding of users needs and I would assume would
certainly want Scribus to move to handle all reasonable features people
want. I know that from Cebit he had some interesting talks about
features with some professional DTP users and will be looking to bring
more features to Scribus.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://nashi.altmuehlnet.de/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20040401/0c37147f/attachment.pgp 

More information about the scribus mailing list