So Bob client opens a connection with a bunch of attributes, and the server end expects something just a bit different. Occasionally these RFCs themselves are ambiguous (I'm looking at you, IMAP), even though they are not supposed to be. Much of the programming I have done is in the internet arena, and trying to adhere to RFCs. Let's say you have an Affinity-specific attribute called 'af-1', what happens if Adobe have already reserved that for a future specification of idml? But unless you have access to their parser and see how it handles the Affinity-specific attributes/elements/whatever, you won't know for sure what will happen. The same could apply to Affinity-specific content in an IDML file idml is a must.īy ignoring things they don't understand. If Serif ever wishes to allow translators to work with their tools. But I do know that Trados et al that translators use simply work as has been mentioned in this thread. I haven't needed to interface much with translators.
That is also true of ID to ID-I use the same version as they use. This is true whether it is a "simple brochure or, as is often the case, a book.ĭo I "collaborate" as in multiple back and forth work using disparate applications? Never. idml into ID and review to make sure the content is simply present. In such a case, I'll use a conversion to. I do not care if lines break differently. However, there have been times when the project has been finished (or is close to being finished) where the client requests an. If there is/was no agreed upon layout application specified, I'll generally use QXP. Others for whom it is apparent they don't deal with needing to provide deliverables in a "common" format, etc., etc.įor myself, I'll use the application the client wants deliverables in.with some exceptions. There are people in this thread writing out of absolute ignorance.
0 kommentar(er)
