- From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 02:25:50 -0400
- To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 20:17 -0700, Rik Cabanier wrote: > This is indeed all true to create a prepress workflow. > You forgot to include filter, blending and simple opacity. :-) > These make > printing at high quality fiendishly hard. (It took us at Adobe close to a > decade to get it right) > > I think what is needed, is a way to reliably export to a PDF file with CMYK > and spot colors from a web page. Prepress systems and applications (such as > InDesign, QuarkXpress or Acrobat) have all the logic to produce the right > output. > Putting all this logic in the browser is unlikely to happen. Long term I see InDesign & Quark moving into the browser, which becomes an operating system with a million lines of code. I'm not sure that I like this vision particularly but it's what's happening. In that vision yes, the browser does the prepress stuff too. Right now, though, I'm aiming for . CSS powerful enough to describe the processes (so that e.g. Quark or InDesign could handle it, or Antenna House or RenderX or...) . web browsers can do basic typography enough for most simple publications, including print-on-demand book kiosks that are springing up . another application can take over for higher end work, e.g. where people want "advanced" things like page numbers :D yes, as long as the hooks are there in the markup and the CSS . we must not do anything now that would make it difficult or impossible to do the right thing later. At any rate I think we both agree that overprinting is a prepress function today. Best, Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml
Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 06:26:54 UTC