View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0001977 | Scribus | Import / Export | public | 2005-05-12 05:45 | 2012-06-10 20:42 |
| Reporter | plagiats | Assigned To | |||
| Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | N/A |
| Status | acknowledged | Resolution | open | ||
| Summary | 0001977: Export filter : From Scribus to CSS | ||||
| Description | Hi everyone, Scribus is a great tool for structuring documents. But why couldn't it apply to the web? Functionalities Scribus offers are quite similar to what actual webdesigners are waiting for. For now, they are coding their stylesheets by hand, saying "Width for this box has to be 100 pt, background will be #CEFFFF, bla". CSS syntax for this would be : mybox{ width: 100 pt; background: #CEFFFF; } This can be easily done in Scribus, it's just a matter of export filter. So I'm writing to ask : Is anyone interested in creating an export filter to Scribus that would convert box properties to CSS ? That would be a great reason for web developers to use Scribus! What do you think ? | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Patch | |||||
|
|
We plan an XHTML+CSS exporter for Scribus 1.3.x. |
|
|
That said, I *strongly* disagree that the facilties in Scribus are ideal for web development. Scribus is about *fixed* layouts and page sizes, *fixed* font sizes, etc for *print* media. The web is about varying display sizes, display types (braille, very low res/very high res, screen reader, etc), font sizes, and layouts. Good web media must *adapt* to the user's display; Scribus is not well suited to producing this sort of thing. The XHTML+CSS exporter cbradney mentioned, if I understand correctly, will probably rely on a lot of CSS2 absolute positioning etc. This could cause problems for for older browsers, buggy browsers (like about 90% of the market use), etc, and would make content created with it extremely annoying to read for a significant proportion of the audience. There are also likely to be problems with font selection, font matching, etc. As far as I'm concerned, an XHTML+CSS exporter is a better altnernative than PDF on the web, but NO SUBSTITUTE for good web design for normal pages. |
|
|
Hi, We are talking about development of a new functionnality. Liquid designs and em as font size can perfectly be implemented in Scribus (maybe not in short term, if only I knew how to code) or in the export filter (converting "Arial 12pt" to equivalent font-size:__em). Once again, I understand this may not come in a first row, let's be patient and open to this eventuality. Webdesigners need a tool for placing boxes graphically. Scribus is a great one for printed media, we all agree on that point. But it's principle can become basis for a good webdesign tool. All your critics are based on the way this will be done! As users, let's wait, report bugs, help, and see. Don't you think? For compatibility concerns, we can imagine in a ideal world that scribus (or maybe a fork?) will provide an option that generates needed hacks for backward compatibility. These hacks exist and are mainly listed here: http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=CssHack I see the (X)HTML + CSS export more as an alternative to table-based layout (who's talking about marketshare?) that exploded once Adobe permitted to graphically position elements in Pageready/Photoshop. Seriously, do you really think graphically positionning boxes and obtaining a proper CSS is a bad thing ? Maybe this "proper css" will come in a while. |
|
|
This has obviously something to do with my post http://nashi.altmuehlnet.de/pipermail/scribus/2005-July/011841.html I still think that cross publishing is very much of a buzz word. As Craig Ringer points out, scribus is no software for web development (neither are InDesign and QXP). I don't know any web desiger using ID or QXP for web development. It might be a compromise to enable scribus to save as XHTMTL + CSS and to add the possibilty of using/incorporating an external web editor (nvu would be a good idea) the same way GIMP is used as an external image editor. This approach would be more honest than the "cross publishing" promises from Adobe or Quark, since print publishing and web publishing are worlds apart. Please don't forget that neither QXP nor ID can produce w3c conformant (X)HTML. Even Dreamweaver is unable to do so. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2005-05-12 05:45 | plagiats | New Issue | |
| 2005-05-12 06:34 | cbradney | Note Added: 0004596 | |
| 2005-05-14 10:58 |
|
Note Added: 0004623 | |
| 2005-05-14 15:00 | plagiats | Note Added: 0004625 | |
| 2005-05-14 15:03 | plagiats | Note Edited: 0004625 | |
| 2005-07-13 00:31 | christoph_s | Note Added: 0005556 | |
| 2005-07-13 01:40 |
|
Status | new => acknowledged |
| 2012-06-10 20:42 | ale | Relationship added | related to 0008769 |
