Well, it sounds like the jury is in, and it does not look good for FO
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Scott Prentice <sp10 at leximation.com> wrote: > Hi Ed... > > Yes .. the cost is definitely related to the complexity. If you have FO > developers in-house, that will help a lot. The key is that you need a solid > understanding of XSLT, plus you need to fully understand page layout > concepts, and on top of that the FO language itself is huge and complex. If > you want to learn FO, I highly recommend finding a way to take Ken Holman's > class "Practical Formatting Using XSL-FO" (see > http://www.cranesoftwrights.com/). This will give you a good solid base > from which to start. > > A lot of XSLT developers think that they can also do FO development. > That's where you run into trouble. There's a lot more involved. > > However .. regardless of your ability to create and maintain FO > stylesheets, you can never achieve the same level of formatting with FO > that you get from FM. You can get close, and if close is good enough (along > with other benefits of FO), then FO can be a good solution. > > Cheers, > > ...scott > > > On 2/27/13 12:12 PM, Ed Nodland wrote: > > These are good inputs. > > The "site:" for searching was new to me. Thanks > > I think I will stay with Framemaker and upgrade to version 11. I hope > Adobe improves the stability and UI issues as time goes on. > > I am curious if the high cost of XSL-FO development is due to FO being > more difficult then basic XSLT. We program many XSLTs, some are complex > that merge data from multiple XML files that contain coded data in tables, > tables of descriptions of the coded data, header data, etc. XSLT becomes a > powerful programming language for text processing if it is written > recursively like the old LISP language. I agree this can be daunting, but > maybe I could eat FO for breakfast. I'll have to looking to it further > when due dates don't get in my way. > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Combs, Richard < > richard.combs at polycom.com> wrote: > >> Harro de Jong wrote: >> >> > > Also, I could not find the search capability on frameusers.com to >> search >> > older topics >> > > by keyword other then the archive that looks like something out of >> the 90's. >> > Am I >> > > missing some capability somewhere? >> > >> > >> > I use the search at >> > < http://www.mail-archive.com/framers at lists.frameusers.com/info.html> >> >> I use Google: <search term> site:frameusers.com >> >> Richard G. Combs >> Senior Technical Writer >> Polycom, Inc. >> richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom >> 303-223-5111 >> ------ >> rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom >> 303-903-6372 >> ------ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > You are currently subscribed to framers as sp10 at leximation.com. > > Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com. > > To unsubscribe send a blank email toframers-unsubscribe at > lists.frameusers.com > or visit > http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/sp10%40leximation.com > > Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. > Visithttp://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.frameusers.com/pipermail/framers/attachments/20130301/eb535867/attachment.html>
