Harro... Yes .. $200K is a bit extreme, and hopefully not the norm, but that is what can happen over a number of years of tweaking and adjustments of FO stylesheets. Something that many groups do as a natural course of events through FrameMaker templates. My main point is that it's good to be aware that you'll need to outsource a task (page and layout design) that your existing employees are perfectly qualified to perform, when switching to an FO-based publishing workflow. Other benefits may offset that expense, which is fine.
Cheers, ...scott On 2/27/13 3:19 AM, Harro de Jong wrote: > Scott Prentice wrote: > > >> If your PDF layout requirements are very simple, XSL-FO *may* be a good >> option >> for you. ... >> In my opinion, FO is good for high volume and moderate to low PDF formatting >> requirements. Yes, you can make it do most of what you can do with Frame, >> but it'll >> require a huge amount of coding and effort. I have seen people spend well >> over >> $200K on FO development over many years to achieve moderate looking PDFs. >> Something that might take a week to develop with FrameMaker. > That's not been my experience with FO templating. I've seen FO templating > take maybe 1.5-3x as long as in FrameMaker. $200k sounds more like they > developed an entire formatting engine. > > Harro de Jong > Triview > _______________________________________________ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.frameusers.com/pipermail/framers/attachments/20130227/4b8b1599/attachment.html>
