At 06:50 -0700 23/3/07, Chris Borokowski wrote:

>Steve, I like your thinking, but in my view HTML codeis dead except as a 
>transit  mechanism. You can to get your structured FrameMaker content into a 
>CMS so you spend less time in FTP/HTML updating stuff that is better handled 
>by an automated link and document manager.

I should have been clearer in my posting. I'm revising my web site and modeling 
it in FrameMaker because:

. It allows me to construct a working PDF hyperdocument for the site. I used 
this method to prepare input for the original web contractors when the site was 
first put up, which was back in the Dark Ages of the Web. It worked then.

. I don't [yet] have the web skills to work directly in XHTML... although I 
soon will.

Having been working with structured FrameMaker - nothing to do with web 
programming - for the past eighteen months or so, I just had an 'Aha!' moment 
for FrameMaker <-> XHTML <-> website. I figured if I was modeling the site in 
FrameMaker anyway, I might as well try to leverage its XHTML potential.

>I'm looking along these lines for the websie for the consulting firm for which 
>I work (www.dionysius.com). We're a small office that handles many different 
>tasks, and it looks terrible that the last one on the list appears to be our 
>website.

Been there, got the T-shirt. My site was the result of a grant back in 1999, 
but it is so far off what I now do, or even think, that it's become a bit of an 
embarrassment. It's also engineers to cope with [fight?] the browsers and web 
'standards' that were prevalent back in '99.

>If I find anything definitive that's not a hack, I'll let you know.

Great: thanks.

-- 
Steve

Reply via email to