Software: Computing Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by WikiProject Computing.

I am reverting your edits. PDF-XChange is almost an exact replica of Adobe Acrobat and Acrobat is a form of desktop publishing. I think a lot of people are getting confused with desktop publishing that doesn't stress or include on graphic technologies such as Encapsulated PostScript, typsetting aren't desktop publishing which isn't true. Technical Documentation datasheet and User Manuals commonly design through InDesign or Acrobat depending on preference are also desktop publishing. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you are confused. Desktop publishing is largely about creating printed material with an emphasis on interactive page layout and graphic design. There are no Acrobat products I know of that provide this kind of functionality working directly with PDF files. Letdorf (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Do you even read, I said "I think most people are confused," that it must be this way. Desktop Publishing is only graphic design, that is totally WP:OR. Just because desktop publishing have a large industry that utilize journalism, magazine that doesn't make it novels, technical documentations and yearly reports are not Desktop Publishing, less functions doesn't justify it is not a DTP. PDF-XChange, the viewing is only one of its function, as said before it has all of the function of Adobe Acrobat.

Just because, Adobe make it for easier interchange assist in meetings, that doesn't mean desktop publishing software can't be Layout orientated versus Graphic orientated. Says by who Desktop publishing main content focus must be graphics. Newspaper buisness reports often uses diagrams, tree charts also.

These tools aren't DTP

• Cropping
• Model Tree
• Batch processing and OCR (an alternative method versus graphic orientations)

I've seen The Vancouver Sun publish their documents on pdf file before. Newspaper is definately DTP. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A PDF creator is fundamentally a printer driver that creates a file on disk instead of marks on paper. The fact that a DTP project ends in a PDF file doesn't make PDF software DTP software. The tools the paper uses to do the page layout are DTP, the PDF creator is not. Jeh (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly! My definition of DTP is not OR - I think Ramu50 should go and read the Desktop publishing article (and possibly graphic design as well). I didn't claim "main content focus must be graphics", I said "interactive page layout and graphic design". Graphic design isn't just about pictures. In any case, Acrobat is manifestly not a DTP package like FrameMaker or QuarkXPress. Letdorf (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Interactive Graphic Design is only a spectrum of Desktop Design. The field Desktop Design includes

• Entertainment (newspaper, magazine)
• Interactive Design (CES trade show, expos)
• Electronic Interchange format (xml, json, eBooks, PDF)

though too interactive like swf flash and rich internet applications would be totally off topic. Than I suppose we should add interchange section, it is quite big on the web and shouldn't be ignored. PDF and FrameMaker would be interchange, but QuarkXPress would totally be not DTP. It functionality is too limited and would be more correctly classified as a vector editing software like Adobe Illustrator. --Ramu50 (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Er, are you claiming now that QuarkXPress is not a DTP package??? Letdorf (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]

At least by the looks of the software it doesn't seems like one. I haven't look into a great depth of the software yet. You are against generalization? (just wondering). --Ramu50 (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps I should point this out. What the software looks like does not matter. What matters are reliable sources. If the developer says their software is xyz, and secondary sources such as a reputable magazine says the developer's software is xyz, then that software is xyz, regardless of anyone's opinion. Rilak (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

<sigh>, Ramu50, please refrain from making assertions about things you obviously know nothing about. Letdorf (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]

See Category:Desktop publishing software. The category is shown as a subcat of itself and the category page is shown (at bottom) as being categorized with itself. Can someone fix this please. Thanks, tooold (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I moved commercial software to proprietary software because free software can also be commercial for the definition of freedom itself. In addition I propose to move the list freeware to the proprietary software section, because that also includes freeware, shareware, demo, ecc. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]