4 ms·
Sometime ago I brought Affinity publisher (I have no affiliation with them, I got it because it did not require a subscription). It is a desktop publishing appl
by tomjen3 2y ago
Sometime ago I brought Affinity publisher (I have no affiliation with them, I got it because it did not require a subscription). It is a desktop publishing application, so the intended use case is that you make the text separately and then you setup a layout and include the text.
And honestly, I think that is the better way to go. You don't have to chase down weird commands (how do you set LaTeX to use Lato as the main font again?) and you get instant feedback on how things look.
I haven't found a way to mark text up as "this is a blockquote" and then have that mapped to the correct style, and it seems to lack a few of the more esoteric font features LaTeX does support. The fact that you get instant feedback and can tweak the relevant knobs as much as you like? That means you get a much nicer layout.
If you have a Windows machine with the Office package, you get Microsoft Publisher, which I believe can import Word documents and extract the style from that.
Scribus can map styles from imported files, but last time I checked I couldn't get it to auto update the view when you changed the font.
- constantcrying 2y ago>Affinity publisher Doesn't even have real math support. Can it even be scripted? Ridiculous alternative to Typst or LaTeX, they don't even compete in the same category.
- tomjen3 2y agoThats my point - we should consider manually do the layout of our design. It is both better and give you a much tighter feedback loop. I do strongly disagree that they are not in the same category - they both solve the problem of "taking this text and turn it into a nice PDF". If you assume that this must happen through scripting, then that is exactly the point I was questioning.