[Scribus] XML format used in Scribus

[PLinnell]

On Saturday 14 May 2005 20:41, Gregory Pittman wrote:
> Craig Bradney wrote:
> > You dont see many, if any,
> >closed or open apps having import filters for future versions.
>
> On the other hand, even now (and probably in the future), 1.3x+
> will be able to import 1.2x and below -- why should this be a
> one-way street?
>
> >If you create a doc in 1.3, why would you want to even open it in
> > 1.2.x?
>
> Here is a practical scenario:  I have 1.3x, my friend has 1.2.2 (or
> lower).  We are trying to collaborate. I send him my file, but he
> can't open it.  I try to get him to upgrade, and like many, he
> can't seem to figure out why he can't make the new version work. 
> Variation: I'm on vacation, and would like to tweak a Scribus file
> on an old machine I have that has Scribus on it.  Uh, oh.  It's
> 1.2.2, and I have no internet access.

Simple for the moment, both use 1.2.x.

 I've even run 1.3, 1.2.1, 1.2.2cvs and 0.8 at the same time for 
testing :-)
>
> Scenario 2:  I have been working with Scribus a long time.  I spent
> a lot of time in the past putting together something I saved in
> 1.1.x format, and rather than redo that (I'm not even sure what was
> there), I'd like to load this into my 1.5.x Scribus, but it says
> "unrecognized format."
>
Not likely:

Well, today's 1.2.2cvs loads a a fairly complex doc from 0.5.5 
perfectly. This has color management tags too.

> I've used, for example, Wordperfect, for many years on different
> architectures, yet Wordperfect seems to be able to import ages old
> versions of files, even though sometimes you need to help it
> recognize them.
>

What *is* different is the level of complexity inside a DTP app. Plus, 
this does not account for the level of precision needed/expected in a 
DTP app. Scribus 1.3.x moving forward will become more complex over 
time - you can bet on it.

> What I think it comes down to is the issue of
> intentionally/unintentionally setting up barriers to the use of
> (and happiness with) Scribus.  A backup plan can always be to at
> least have a parsable format so that some utility can help with
> problems, and maybe even yield unanticipated benefits.
>

Oh, we certainly do recognize this. No intentional barriers are 
intended.  Just the going from 1.3+ backsaving to  < 1.2.x is not a 
high priority IMNSHO.

Peter