Legacy Line Leading

[DSweet]

Are we able to use Legacy Line Leading in only certain areas of a template? Either turn it on and off dynamically or as a single text box parameter setting?

 

If I have 2 text boxes on my template page, can I use Legacy Line Leading for only one of them and have the other text box use the default line leading parameters?

 

If the current answer is no, then I would like to submit that possibility for a future FusionPro edition.

 

Thanks.

.

[Dan Korn]

Are we able to use Legacy Line Leading in only certain areas of a template? Either turn it on and off dynamically or as a single text box parameter setting?

 

If I have 2 text boxes on my template page, can I use Legacy Line Leading for only one of them and have the other text box use the default line leading parameters?

 

If the current answer is no, then I would like to submit that possibility for a future FusionPro edition.

No, it's a document-wide setting. If you have an enhancement to suggest, please let us know what the regular leading is not doing properly so that we can fix that. Frankly, we'd really like to just be able to get rid of legacy leading.

[DSweet]

You had asked me to send you a sample of line leading that is used with “legacy line leading” because it contains problems of not appearing to flow correctly when the normal line leading is used. The sample I am attaching contains examples of that. Mostly from what I’ve found it deals with text wrapping around other text and graphic boxes and there is also an extra little wrinkle in the usage of super and/or subscript characters. There appears to be an extra leading gap where the boxes that are set to be the boundaries for the wrapping begin and end and when super and subscript characters fall at the end of a line.

 

In my example, when line legacy is turned off you will notice extra leading gaps appearring in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 as the body copy begins to flow over the regions bounded by the boxes along the right edge that are set for the text wrapping around the figures on the stock. You will also notice that the line leading for the last line of paragraph 1, which contains a superscript character at the end of line, appears to be correct.

 

Now, when you turn line legacy on, paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 now all appear correctly and flow around the wrapped box regions without any extra gaps. However look again at the end of paragraph 1 and you will see that the extra gap has now been transferred there since the end of the line is a superscript character. Take off the superscript and that line once again appears correctly.

 

We work with a number of banks and law offices that continually use superscripts for notations and they are more and more also using stock with numerous charting and graphics that I need to have text flow around and through. It has been quite frustrating over the years having to judge which of the two was more important - correct leading with legacy for paragraphs or without legacy with super and subscript footnotes. So far I have been able to “fake it” and luckily our customers have not called us on this yet. But I would greatly appreciate if your tech teams at PTI would please fix these obvious errors.

 

Thanks for any and all the help that you guys do for us.

.

[Dan Korn]

Thanks for providing that information.

 

We are aware of both of these issues, specifically problems with text wrapping around other frames using "new" leading, and problems with superscript characters using legacy leading.

 

Unfortunately, while the errors are obvious, a solution is not. For one thing, any change we make will impact lots of existing jobs, using both kinds of leading. We may need to come up with a "Leading Mark III" which works slightly differently than either of the two existing modes.

 

What I can do for now is enter a bug report with this information, and hopefully we'll get a chance to take a look under the hood of leading something soon. The case number is FP-12012.