RE: structured Frame

[russ]

Fred,

Good summary. I have one thing to add and one disagreement...

For the average author, the biggest advantage of structured Frame might be 
simply the superiority of the authoring environment. It is so much easier to 
navigate, select, cut/paste, move, and format your content when you have a 
structure tree to work with (things which, as an author, I do A LOT). It takes 
time to get to know all the little tricks, but once you do, you'll never go 
back to unstructured Frame.  When I do, I get frustrated by the inefficiencies 
much the same as going back to working with Word. This holds true whether or 
not you ever actually save as XML and presents a compelling reason to use 
structured Frame, no matter what. There is an investment involved, but the 
payoff in authoring/editing efficiency pays you back over and over again.

My disagreement is the point about the lone writer. I am a lone writer and I 
depend heavily on structured Frame. Were I to use unstructured Frame, I would 
simply not be able to get my job done. It's all about how quickly I can get 
content on the page and how effectively I can use various single-sourcing 
techniques that make my workload possible.

Russ




From: Fred Ridder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: structured Frame
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], framers@lists.frameusers.com
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

Since nobody else has chimed in on this one, let me offer a few
comments.

It seems to me that the big advantages of structured authoring
fall into a few general areas:
-enhanced ability to publish content in different forms
(definition A of single sourcing)
-enhanced ability to reuse content in different contexts
(definition B of single sourcing)
-reduced translation costs from direct reuse of existing
translated content modules
-more consistent organization of information across different
documents
-more consistent organization of content written by different
writers
-more consistent presentation of similar information types
-content is (theoretically) portable across a range of different
structured authoring/editing/publishing tools (i.e. you're
not locked into a proprietary file format)

For a lone writer, unless you have a significant requirement for
single sourcing (under either or both definitions of the term),
or have your documents translated into a lot of languages,
the return on investment for migrating to a structured
documentation environment is likely to be rather small.

The big payoffs from a financial standpoint (the key ingredient
of the business case for converting) stem from the reuse of
content. This is a direct, demonstrable, quanitifiable benefit.





___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: Structured Frame

[mcarr]

Miriam Boral wrote:

 I'm the sole tech writer for a very small company, but we have a
 large suite of documentation. I'm beginning to teach myself
 structured Frame both because I feel it's the way of the future (and
 therefore worth learning) and also to explore how it might (or might
 not) be beneficial to the company I work for. I'm interested in
 hearing from others about their experience working with it and how
 they feel it benefits their work.

In all likelihood it will be beneficial to the company that you work for,
as XML provides access to the data that your company does not currently
have. If they can't leverage from it, it will be for one of two reasons -
they're either not trying hard enough, or the data that you're providing
them with is inadequate for their purposes.

Your interests are aligned with those of the company - if you wish to
learn about doing structure well, you need to provide the company with
something that works. That means analyzing dataflows and developing plans
for the broad and long term use of information within the company.
Developing structures that make it easy or interesting to author good
hardcopy will probably fall well short of what could be accomplished.
Without meaning any disrespect, you probably would benefit from getting a
consultant in to help. Money spent now may prevent you from wasting a lot
of time later.

Disclaimer - among other things I'm a consultant, but my company hasn't
done a FrameMaker project for a couple of years at least. The principles
apply no matter what the application.


Marcus Carr
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: structured Frame (another Fred heard from)

[Fred Wersan]

Miriam asked about the benefits of structured Frame. Fred Ridder 
suggested that the payoff for a small writing group might not be big.


This question comes up periodically on this list, but I guess it is 
always new to someone and therefore always worth answering.


I too am a sole writer. I've been using structured Frame since Frame 7 
came out. I think it is well worth the effort even if you don't have to 
do any of the things that Fred mentions in his list of good reasons for 
structured authoring.


Unless you are really good about following a style guide, an 
unstructured doc set eventually accrues all sorts of inconsistencies, 
both deliberate and unintentional. The process of designing a good EDD 
and migrating your files to it will help weed out these inconsistencies 
and get your doc set into real good shape. Then, going forward, the 
formatting rules built into your structure will help ensure consistency. 
You won't have to remember which of all your para and char formats you 
have to use in which situations. You just have to remember that a para 
goes under a section, a listItem does under a list, and so on. You wrap 
a class name in a class element and so on. Everything works.


You will also be able to take advantage of a variety of plug-ins that 
take advantage of structured Frame and make life easier.


You should expect to continue to revise your EDD over time, since you 
won't think of everything the first time through. Sometimes that forces 
you to do some revising of manuals, because you've come up with a more 
elegant structure, but often you just have to reimport the EDD and 
everything magically works.


Just think of it as a better work environment than an unstructured app 
and don't worry about single-sourcing and translation, etc. (unless you 
really do have to worry about those things.)


Fred
--
Fred Wersan
Senior Technical Writer
MAK Technologies
68 Moulton St.
Cambridge, MA 02138
617-876-8085
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: Problems with PDF

[Miriam Boral]

Tina,

You might try creating the PDF from postscript rather than Frame:

1) Open the book and all files in it.
2) Print the book to a postscript file using the Adobe PDF printer option.
3) Double-click the postscript file to start Distiller and create the PDF.

Miriam

You wrote.

I'm using Frame 8.
I have a book (28 chapters) with a TOC. I'm creating a PDF using the File 
Save As PDF command...
I can make a PDF of the TOC on its own. Works fine...
If I put the TOC in the book, I get this message in the log file where the
TOC starts:
%%[  Error: undefined; OffendingCommand: pdfmark; ErrorInfo: Rect   ]%%


___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: fixed vs. relative paths in xrefs

[Stuart Rogers]

Rene Stephenson wrote:


My question is, I looked in the MIF and I don't see any path stuff
that I could just do a find/replace to make it point to the right
path. Is there any way to change the paths without having to manually
reinsert each and every xref??  ALL ideas welcome.



Search for XRefSrcFile.

Good luck,

--
Stuart Rogers
Technical Communicator
Phoenix Geophysics Limited
Toronto, ON, Canada
+1 (416) 491-7340 x 325

srogers phoenix-geophysics com

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home, and when he grows
up, he'll never be able to merge his car onto the freeway.

- anon.
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: Archive Plug-in - No documents found in current book

[Stuart Rogers]

Judie Vegh wrote:


I've got a coworker who is trying to archive a FrameMaker book, however,
during mid-archive, they receive the message No documents found in
current book. However, there are plenty of files within the book that
exist in its directory. The Archive plug-in log has the following, and
only the following: 


 FrameMaker version 7.1

Archive Plugin version 2.5



Archiving book: umEforms.book




\\srv\...\umEforms.book

Copying to: \\Srv-i\...\umEforms\umEforms.book
file:///\\Srv-i\...\umEforms\umEforms.book   




(Ellipses indicate shortened length of real location of files.)

Thoughts as to why this is not archiving or recognizing the other files
in the book?



That looks like a network path; you probably have a problem with either 
access rights or network speed.  This doesn't sound like a Framemaker 
problem -- can your IT dept. help out?


--
Stuart Rogers
Technical Communicator
Phoenix Geophysics Limited
Toronto, ON, Canada
+1 (416) 491-7340 x 325

srogers phoenix-geophysics com

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home, and when he grows 
up, he'll never be able to merge his car onto the freeway.


- anon.
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: structured Frame

[Fred Ridder]

Russ,

I've never said that using structured authoring in a single-writer
department didn't have significant advantages compared to
non-structured authoring. There *are* some real benefits, but
they tend to be less quantifiable tangible and harder to proove
to managers or business analysts who have to sign off on the
budget and implementation plan. The gains in collaboration and
writing a topic only once, which are generally more demonstrable,
become more significant as the number of writers increases, and
the big cost savings come when you're doing single-sourcing and/or
translation. My point was just that for a single writer producing
documents in a single language with a low degree of single-
sourcing, it will be harder to make a compelling *business* case
for adopting structure.

Also, my comments were made in the context of Miriam's stated
situation where she is dealing with a a large suite of documentation.
It may make a lot of sense for her to use structured Frame for new
documents going forward, but the case for converting all of the
legacy documentation is less clear to me. Besides the fact that the
productivity gains will be smaller for converted existing documents,
it is very common to underestimate the amount of time (and cost)
it will take to properly convert legacy documents. Yes, you can
automate the tagging, but that doesn't mean that the content
actually matches the structure as it is written. (If it did all conform
already, you wouldn't really be gaining much direct benefit from
using structure, would you?)

-Fred Ridder



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: structured Frame
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 05:08:25 -0700

Fred,

Good summary. I have one thing to add and one disagreement...

For the average author, the biggest advantage of structured Frame might be 
simply the superiority of the authoring environment. It is so much easier 
to navigate, select, cut/paste, move, and format your content when you have 
a structure tree to work with (things which, as an author, I do A LOT). It 
takes time to get to know all the little tricks, but once you do, you'll 
never go back to unstructured Frame.  When I do, I get frustrated by the 
inefficiencies much the same as going back to working with Word. This holds 
true whether or not you ever actually save as XML and presents a compelling 
reason to use structured Frame, no matter what. There is an investment 
involved, but the payoff in authoring/editing efficiency pays you back over 
and over again.


My disagreement is the point about the lone writer. I am a lone writer and 
I depend heavily on structured Frame. Were I to use unstructured Frame, I 
would simply not be able to get my job done. It's all about how quickly I 
can get content on the page and how effectively I can use various 
single-sourcing techniques that make my workload possible.


Russ




From: Fred Ridder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: structured Frame
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], framers@lists.frameusers.com
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

Since nobody else has chimed in on this one, let me offer a few
comments.

It seems to me that the big advantages of structured authoring
fall into a few general areas:
-enhanced ability to publish content in different forms
(definition A of single sourcing)
-enhanced ability to reuse content in different contexts
(definition B of single sourcing)
-reduced translation costs from direct reuse of existing
translated content modules
-more consistent organization of information across different
documents
-more consistent organization of content written by different
writers
-more consistent presentation of similar information types
-content is (theoretically) portable across a range of different
structured authoring/editing/publishing tools (i.e. you're
not locked into a proprietary file format)

For a lone writer, unless you have a significant requirement for
single sourcing (under either or both definitions of the term),
or have your documents translated into a lot of languages,
the return on investment for migrating to a structured
documentation environment is likely to be rather small.

The big payoffs from a financial standpoint (the key ingredient
of the business case for converting) stem from the reuse of
content. This is a direct, demonstrable, quanitifiable benefit.



_
Get a FREE small business Web site and more from Microsoft® Office Live! 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/aub0930003811mrt/direct/01/


___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: structured Frame

[russ]

Fred,

Your points are well-taken and I didn't mean to be confrontational. I just 
thought that your return on investment . . . is likely to be rather small 
statement might not be completely true. I didn't realize that you were speaking 
in terms of making a business case. Indeed, it is very, very difficult to 
quantify and justify authoring conveniences. How can you possibly put a dollar 
value on something like numbered lists that always start at 1 automatically? 
I know the value as a writer, because I've done it umpteenbillion times and 
after a while, the savings really add up. I wouldn't know how to put that in a 
proposal, though. Luckily, I've not had to do that yet.

Russ

 Original Message 
Subject: RE: structured Frame
From: Fred Ridder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, September 11, 2007 11:54 am
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],  framers@lists.frameusers.com

Russ,

I've never said that using structured authoring in a single-writer
department didn't have significant advantages compared to
non-structured authoring. There *are* some real benefits, but
they tend to be less quantifiable tangible and harder to proove
to managers or business analysts who have to sign off on the
budget and implementation plan. The gains in collaboration and
writing a topic only once, which are generally more demonstrable,
become more significant as the number of writers increases, and
the big cost savings come when you're doing single-sourcing and/or
translation. My point was just that for a single writer producing
documents in a single language with a low degree of single-
sourcing, it will be harder to make a compelling *business* case
for adopting structure.

Also, my comments were made in the context of Miriam's stated
situation where she is dealing with a a large suite of documentation.
It may make a lot of sense for her to use structured Frame for new
documents going forward, but the case for converting all of the
legacy documentation is less clear to me. Besides the fact that the
productivity gains will be smaller for converted existing documents,
it is very common to underestimate the amount of time (and cost)
it will take to properly convert legacy documents. Yes, you can
automate the tagging, but that doesn't mean that the content
actually matches the structure as it is written. (If it did all conform
already, you wouldn't really be gaining much direct benefit from
using structure, would you?)

-Fred Ridder


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: structured Frame
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 05:08:25 -0700

Fred,

Good summary. I have one thing to add and one disagreement...

For the average author, the biggest advantage of structured Frame might be 
simply the superiority of the authoring environment. It is so much easier 
to navigate, select, cut/paste, move, and format your content when you have 
a structure tree to work with (things which, as an author, I do A LOT). It 
takes time to get to know all the little tricks, but once you do, you'll 
never go back to unstructured Frame. When I do, I get frustrated by the 
inefficiencies much the same as going back to working with Word. This holds 
true whether or not you ever actually save as XML and presents a compelling 
reason to use structured Frame, no matter what. There is an investment 
involved, but the payoff in authoring/editing efficiency pays you back over 
and over again.

My disagreement is the point about the lone writer. I am a lone writer and 
I depend heavily on structured Frame. Were I to use unstructured Frame, I 
would simply not be able to get my job done. It's all about how quickly I 
can get content on the page and how effectively I can use various 
single-sourcing techniques that make my workload possible.

Russ

 
 

From: Fred Ridder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: structured Frame
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], framers@lists.frameusers.com
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

Since nobody else has chimed in on this one, let me offer a few
comments.

It seems to me that the big advantages of structured authoring
fall into a few general areas:
-enhanced ability to publish content in different forms
(definition A of single sourcing)
-enhanced ability to reuse content in different contexts
(definition B of single sourcing)
-reduced translation costs from direct reuse of existing
translated content modules
-more consistent organization of information across different
documents
-more consistent organization of content written by different
writers
-more consistent presentation of similar information types
-content is (theoretically) portable across a range of different
structured authoring/editing/publishing tools (i.e. you're
not locked into a proprietary file format)

For a lone writer, unless you have a significant requirement for
single sourcing (under either or both definitions of the term),
or have your documents translated into a lot of languages,
the return on investment for 

Framemaker 8 and Web Works Pro compatibility

[p cawthorne]

Hello,
I am about to upgrade from Framemaker 6 to version 8 and notice that
Webworks is no longer provided with Framemaker, I have several help projects
built using Webworks Pro and want to know if I can still use this software
with Frame Maker 8 or if I need to purchase a new online help software? If I
have to purchase a new one, does anybody have any recommendations?
 Thanks
Mulholland
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: Framemaker 8 and Web Works Pro compatibility

[Art Campbell]

A number of other threads here and on Adobe's site have reported that
you need the latest version of Webwork's software to be compatible
with 8... ePublisher 9.2.something

Another alternative is to export from FM through Omsys's MIF2Go
program, which is what I've done for several years.

Cheers,
Art

On 9/11/07, p cawthorne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hello,
 I am about to upgrade from Framemaker 6 to version 8 and notice that
 Webworks is no longer provided with Framemaker, I have several help projects
 built using Webworks Pro and want to know if I can still use this software
 with Frame Maker 8 or if I need to purchase a new online help software? If I
 have to purchase a new one, does anybody have any recommendations?
  Thanks
 Mulholland
 ___



-- 
Art Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  ... In my opinion, there's nothing in this world beats a '52 Vincent
   and a redheaded girl. -- Richard Thompson
 No disclaimers apply.
 DoD 358
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: fixed vs. relative paths in xrefs

[Rene Stephenson]

Someone responded offlist with the solution:
  FM adjusts the path to an xref target, if the source (from which
you copied) and the target (to which you paste) are in different
folders. ...Just copy the file with the xrefs into the same folder 
  as the file into which you want to paste. Then copy the xref.
   
  Worked like a charm!! Thanks, WR!
   
  Rene


Stuart Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Rene Stephenson wrote:
 
 My question is, I looked in the MIF and I don't see any path stuff
 that I could just do a find/replace to make it point to the right
 path. Is there any way to change the paths without having to manually
 reinsert each and every xref?? ALL ideas welcome.
 

Search for XRefSrcFile.

Good luck,

-- 
Stuart Rogers
Technical Communicator
Phoenix Geophysics Limited
Toronto, ON, Canada
+1 (416) 491-7340 x 325

srogers phoenix-geophysics com

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home, and when he grows
up, he'll never be able to merge his car onto the freeway.

- anon.

___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

structured Frame

[r...@weststreetconsulting.com]

Fred,

Good summary. I have one thing to add and one disagreement...

For the average author, the biggest advantage of structured Frame might be 
simply the superiority of the authoring environment. It is so much easier to 
navigate, select, cut/paste, move, and format your content when you have a 
structure tree to work with (things which, as an author, I do A LOT). It takes 
time to get to know all the little tricks, but once you do, you'll never go 
back to unstructured Frame.  When I do, I get frustrated by the inefficiencies 
much the same as going back to working with Word. This holds true whether or 
not you ever actually save as XML and presents a compelling reason to use 
structured Frame, no matter what. There is an investment involved, but the 
payoff in authoring/editing efficiency pays you back over and over again.

My disagreement is the point about the lone writer. I am a lone writer and I 
depend heavily on structured Frame. Were I to use unstructured Frame, I would 
simply not be able to get my job done. It's all about how quickly I can get 
content on the page and how effectively I can use various single-sourcing 
techniques that make my workload possible.

Russ

>>
>>

From: "Fred Ridder" 
Subject: RE: structured Frame
To: miriamb at austin.rr.com, framers at lists.frameusers.com
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

Since nobody else has chimed in on this one, let me offer a few
comments.

It seems to me that the big advantages of structured authoring
fall into a few general areas:
-enhanced ability to publish content in different forms
(definition A of "single sourcing")
-enhanced ability to reuse content in different contexts
(definition B of "single sourcing")
-reduced translation costs from direct reuse of existing
translated content modules
-more consistent organization of information across different
documents
-more consistent organization of content written by different
writers
-more consistent presentation of similar information types
-content is (theoretically) portable across a range of different
structured authoring/editing/publishing tools (i.e. you're
not locked into a proprietary file format)

For a lone writer, unless you have a significant requirement for
single sourcing (under either or both definitions of the term),
or have your documents translated into a lot of languages,
the return on investment for migrating to a structured
documentation environment is likely to be rather small.

The big payoffs from a financial standpoint (the key ingredient
of the business case for converting) stem from the reuse of
content. This is a direct, demonstrable, quanitifiable benefit.


>>
>>

structured Frame (another Fred heard from)

[Fred Wersan]

Miriam asked about the benefits of structured Frame. Fred Ridder 
suggested that the payoff for a small writing group might not be big.

This question comes up periodically on this list, but I guess it is 
always new to someone and therefore always worth answering.

I too am a sole writer. I've been using structured Frame since Frame 7 
came out. I think it is well worth the effort even if you don't have to 
do any of the things that Fred mentions in his list of good reasons for 
structured authoring.

Unless you are really good about following a style guide, an 
unstructured doc set eventually accrues all sorts of inconsistencies, 
both deliberate and unintentional. The process of designing a good EDD 
and migrating your files to it will help weed out these inconsistencies 
and get your doc set into real good shape. Then, going forward, the 
formatting rules built into your structure will help ensure consistency. 
You won't have to remember which of all your para and char formats you 
have to use in which situations. You just have to remember that a para 
goes under a section, a listItem does under a list, and so on. You wrap 
a class name in a class element and so on. Everything works.

You will also be able to take advantage of a variety of plug-ins that 
take advantage of structured Frame and make life easier.

You should expect to continue to revise your EDD over time, since you 
won't think of everything the first time through. Sometimes that forces 
you to do some revising of manuals, because you've come up with a more 
elegant structure, but often you just have to reimport the EDD and 
everything magically works.

Just think of it as a better work environment than an unstructured app 
and don't worry about single-sourcing and translation, etc. (unless you 
really do have to worry about those things.)

Fred
-- 
Fred Wersan
Senior Technical Writer
MAK Technologies
68 Moulton St.
Cambridge, MA 02138
617-876-8085

Problems with PDF

[Miriam Boral]

Tina,

You might try creating the PDF from postscript rather than Frame:

1) Open the book and all files in it.
2) Print the book to a postscript file using the Adobe PDF printer option.
3) Double-click the postscript file to start Distiller and create the PDF.

Miriam

You wrote.
>I'm using Frame 8.
>I have a book (28 chapters) with a TOC. I'm creating a PDF using the File >
>Save As PDF command...
>I can make a PDF of the TOC on its own. Works fine...
>If I put the TOC in the book, I get this message in the log file where the
>TOC starts:
>%%[  Error: undefined; OffendingCommand: pdfmark; ErrorInfo: Rect   ]%%

Archive Plug-in - "No documents found in current book"

[Judie Vegh]

Hi FrameMaker Enthusiasts, 



I've got a coworker who is trying to archive a FrameMaker book, however,
during mid-archive, they receive the message "No documents found in
current book." However, there are plenty of files within the book that
exist in its directory. The Archive plug-in log has the following, and
only the following: 



" FrameMaker version 7.1

Archive Plugin version 2.5



Archiving book: umEforms.book



\\srv\...\umEforms.book

Copying to: \\Srv-i\...\umEforms\umEforms.book
  " 





(Ellipses indicate shortened length of real location of files.)



Thoughts as to why this is not archiving or recognizing the other files
in the book?



Thanks,



Judie




-
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any attached documents may
contain confidential information from Hyland Software, Inc. The
information is intended only for the use of the individual or
entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for the
delivery of this message to the intended recipient, the reader is
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of
this message or of any attached documents, or the taking of any
action or omission to take any action in reliance on the contents
of this message or of any attached documents, is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or telephone, at
(440) 788-5000, and delete the original message immediately. Thank
you.

fixed vs. relative paths in xrefs

[Rene Stephenson]

Hi,

  I'm using FM 7.2 w/ WWP 2003 Pro on WinXP, and I have some issues with xrefs 
that I can't get resolved.

  The short history is:
  In the 8/25 files, there was a list of xrefs (literally a few thousand) for 
navigating to points in the content, all to different FM files within the same 
folder at the same level as the file containing all the xrefs.  After 8/25, a 
new folder was created and all the FM files for the project copied over for the 
next build into a 9/1 folder. In the 9/1 files, all the xref lists got 
converted to tables and the type of xref changed to a different type. It was 
all done manually. On 9/6, I tried to go back to the list format thinking we 
could copy paste from the 8/25 files the lists of xrefs into the 9/1 files. FM 
book window showed no broken xrefs, so we thought all was well.  Not so!  When 
we tried to generate WWH4 in WWP, all the pasted xrefs are unresolved. 
Apparently FM pastes xrefs as fixed paths, not relative paths. So, all the 
xrefs pasted into the 9/1 files point to the 8/25 destinations, not the 9/1 
destinations, even though the 9/1 content files all have the same
 xref marker text as the 8/25 ones.

  Sorry for the confusion.

  My question is, I looked in the MIF and I don't see any path stuff that I 
could just do a find/replace to make it point to the right path. Is there any 
way to change the paths without having to manually reinsert each and every 
xref??  ALL ideas welcome.

  Thanks,
  Rene Stephenson



PS
  If you see this on two lists, please pardon the double post.

fixed vs. relative paths in xrefs

[Stuart Rogers]

Rene Stephenson wrote:
> 
> My question is, I looked in the MIF and I don't see any path stuff
> that I could just do a find/replace to make it point to the right
> path. Is there any way to change the paths without having to manually
> reinsert each and every xref??  ALL ideas welcome.
> 

Search for XRefSrcFile.

Good luck,

-- 
Stuart Rogers
Technical Communicator
Phoenix Geophysics Limited
Toronto, ON, Canada
+1 (416) 491-7340 x 325

srogers phoenix-geophysics com

"Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home, and when he grows
up, he'll never be able to merge his car onto the freeway."

- anon.

Archive Plug-in - "No documents found in current book"

[Stuart Rogers]

Judie Vegh wrote:
> 
> I've got a coworker who is trying to archive a FrameMaker book, however,
> during mid-archive, they receive the message "No documents found in
> current book." However, there are plenty of files within the book that
> exist in its directory. The Archive plug-in log has the following, and
> only the following: 
> 
> " FrameMaker version 7.1
> 
> Archive Plugin version 2.5

> Archiving book: umEforms.book

> 
> \\srv\...\umEforms.book
> 
> Copying to: \\Srv-i\...\umEforms\umEforms.book
>   " 

> 
> (Ellipses indicate shortened length of real location of files.)
>
> Thoughts as to why this is not archiving or recognizing the other files
> in the book?
> 

That looks like a network path; you probably have a problem with either 
access rights or network speed.  This doesn't sound like a Framemaker 
problem -- can your IT dept. help out?

-- 
Stuart Rogers
Technical Communicator
Phoenix Geophysics Limited
Toronto, ON, Canada
+1 (416) 491-7340 x 325

srogers phoenix-geophysics com

"Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home, and when he grows 
up, he'll never be able to merge his car onto the freeway."

- anon.

structured Frame

[Fred Ridder]

Russ,

I've never said that using structured authoring in a single-writer
department didn't have significant advantages compared to
non-structured authoring. There *are* some real benefits, but
they tend to be less quantifiable tangible and harder to proove
to managers or business analysts who have to sign off on the
budget and implementation plan. The gains in collaboration and
writing a topic only once, which are generally more demonstrable,
become more significant as the number of writers increases, and
the big cost savings come when you're doing single-sourcing and/or
translation. My point was just that for a single writer producing
documents in a single language with a low degree of single-
sourcing, it will be harder to make a compelling *business* case
for adopting structure.

Also, my comments were made in the context of Miriam's stated
situation where she is dealing with a "a large suite of documentation".
It may make a lot of sense for her to use structured Frame for new
documents going forward, but the case for converting all of the
legacy documentation is less clear to me. Besides the fact that the
productivity gains will be smaller for converted existing documents,
it is very common to underestimate the amount of time (and cost)
it will take to properly convert legacy documents. Yes, you can
automate the tagging, but that doesn't mean that the content
actually matches the structure as it is written. (If it did all conform
already, you wouldn't really be gaining much direct benefit from
using structure, would you?)

-Fred Ridder


>From: russ at weststreetconsulting.com
>To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Subject: RE: structured Frame
>Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 05:08:25 -0700
>
>Fred,
>
>Good summary. I have one thing to add and one disagreement...
>
>For the average author, the biggest advantage of structured Frame might be 
>simply the superiority of the authoring environment. It is so much easier 
>to navigate, select, cut/paste, move, and format your content when you have 
>a structure tree to work with (things which, as an author, I do A LOT). It 
>takes time to get to know all the little tricks, but once you do, you'll 
>never go back to unstructured Frame.  When I do, I get frustrated by the 
>inefficiencies much the same as going back to working with Word. This holds 
>true whether or not you ever actually save as XML and presents a compelling 
>reason to use structured Frame, no matter what. There is an investment 
>involved, but the payoff in authoring/editing efficiency pays you back over 
>and over again.
>
>My disagreement is the point about the lone writer. I am a lone writer and 
>I depend heavily on structured Frame. Were I to use unstructured Frame, I 
>would simply not be able to get my job done. It's all about how quickly I 
>can get content on the page and how effectively I can use various 
>single-sourcing techniques that make my workload possible.
>
>Russ
>
> >>
> >>
>
>From: "Fred Ridder" 
>Subject: RE: structured Frame
>To: miriamb at austin.rr.com, framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Message-ID: 
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
>Since nobody else has chimed in on this one, let me offer a few
>comments.
>
>It seems to me that the big advantages of structured authoring
>fall into a few general areas:
>-enhanced ability to publish content in different forms
>(definition A of "single sourcing")
>-enhanced ability to reuse content in different contexts
>(definition B of "single sourcing")
>-reduced translation costs from direct reuse of existing
>translated content modules
>-more consistent organization of information across different
>documents
>-more consistent organization of content written by different
>writers
>-more consistent presentation of similar information types
>-content is (theoretically) portable across a range of different
>structured authoring/editing/publishing tools (i.e. you're
>not locked into a proprietary file format)
>
>For a lone writer, unless you have a significant requirement for
>single sourcing (under either or both definitions of the term),
>or have your documents translated into a lot of languages,
>the return on investment for migrating to a structured
>documentation environment is likely to be rather small.
>
>The big payoffs from a financial standpoint (the key ingredient
>of the business case for converting) stem from the reuse of
>content. This is a direct, demonstrable, quanitifiable benefit.
>

_
Get a FREE small business Web site and more from Microsoft? Office Live! 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/aub0930003811mrt/direct/01/

structured Frame

[r...@weststreetconsulting.com]

Fred,

Your points are well-taken and I didn't mean to be confrontational. I just 
thought that your "return on investment . . . is likely to be rather small" 
statement might not be completely true. I didn't realize that you were speaking 
in terms of making a business case. Indeed, it is very, very difficult to 
quantify and justify authoring conveniences. How can you possibly put a dollar 
value on something like "numbered lists that always start at 1 automatically"? 
I know the value as a writer, because I've done it umpteenbillion times and 
after a while, the savings really add up. I wouldn't know how to put that in a 
proposal, though. Luckily, I've not had to do that yet.

Russ

 Original Message 
Subject: RE: structured Frame
From: "Fred Ridder" 
Date: Tue, September 11, 2007 11:54 am
To: russ at weststreetconsulting.com,  framers at lists.frameusers.com

Russ,

I've never said that using structured authoring in a single-writer
department didn't have significant advantages compared to
non-structured authoring. There *are* some real benefits, but
they tend to be less quantifiable tangible and harder to proove
to managers or business analysts who have to sign off on the
budget and implementation plan. The gains in collaboration and
writing a topic only once, which are generally more demonstrable,
become more significant as the number of writers increases, and
the big cost savings come when you're doing single-sourcing and/or
translation. My point was just that for a single writer producing
documents in a single language with a low degree of single-
sourcing, it will be harder to make a compelling *business* case
for adopting structure.

Also, my comments were made in the context of Miriam's stated
situation where she is dealing with a "a large suite of documentation".
It may make a lot of sense for her to use structured Frame for new
documents going forward, but the case for converting all of the
legacy documentation is less clear to me. Besides the fact that the
productivity gains will be smaller for converted existing documents,
it is very common to underestimate the amount of time (and cost)
it will take to properly convert legacy documents. Yes, you can
automate the tagging, but that doesn't mean that the content
actually matches the structure as it is written. (If it did all conform
already, you wouldn't really be gaining much direct benefit from
using structure, would you?)

-Fred Ridder


>From: russ at weststreetconsulting.com
>To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Subject: RE: structured Frame
>Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 05:08:25 -0700
>
>Fred,
>
>Good summary. I have one thing to add and one disagreement...
>
>For the average author, the biggest advantage of structured Frame might be 
>simply the superiority of the authoring environment. It is so much easier 
>to navigate, select, cut/paste, move, and format your content when you have 
>a structure tree to work with (things which, as an author, I do A LOT). It 
>takes time to get to know all the little tricks, but once you do, you'll 
>never go back to unstructured Frame. When I do, I get frustrated by the 
>inefficiencies much the same as going back to working with Word. This holds 
>true whether or not you ever actually save as XML and presents a compelling 
>reason to use structured Frame, no matter what. There is an investment 
>involved, but the payoff in authoring/editing efficiency pays you back over 
>and over again.
>
>My disagreement is the point about the lone writer. I am a lone writer and 
>I depend heavily on structured Frame. Were I to use unstructured Frame, I 
>would simply not be able to get my job done. It's all about how quickly I 
>can get content on the page and how effectively I can use various 
>single-sourcing techniques that make my workload possible.
>
>Russ
>
> >>
> >>
>
>From: "Fred Ridder" 
>Subject: RE: structured Frame
>To: miriamb at austin.rr.com, framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Message-ID: 
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
>Since nobody else has chimed in on this one, let me offer a few
>comments.
>
>It seems to me that the big advantages of structured authoring
>fall into a few general areas:
>-enhanced ability to publish content in different forms
>(definition A of "single sourcing")
>-enhanced ability to reuse content in different contexts
>(definition B of "single sourcing")
>-reduced translation costs from direct reuse of existing
>translated content modules
>-more consistent organization of information across different
>documents
>-more consistent organization of content written by different
>writers
>-more consistent presentation of similar information types
>-content is (theoretically) portable across a range of different
>structured authoring/editing/publishing tools (i.e. you're
>not locked into a proprietary file format)
>
>For a lone writer, unless you have a significant requirement for
>single sourcing (under either or both 

Problems with PDF

[Kelly McDaniel]

Tina,

I echo Miriam's suggestion.

The PDF Writer captures display data and assembles the PDF.

Distiller uses a Postscript datastream produced by FrameMaker. The
Postscript file contains much more, and more accurate information to
construct the PDF...Kelly.

See:  http://dx.sheridan.com/advisor/pdfwriter.html

-Original Message-
From: framers-bounces+kmcdaniel=pavtech@lists.frameusers.com
[mailto:framers-bounces+kmcdaniel=pavtech.com at lists.frameusers.com] On
Behalf Of Miriam Boral
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 8:47 AM
To: framers at lists.frameusers.com; framers at lists.frameusers.com
Cc: Tina Ricks
Subject: Re: Problems with PDF

Tina,

You might try creating the PDF from postscript rather than Frame:

1) Open the book and all files in it.
2) Print the book to a postscript file using the Adobe PDF printer
option.
3) Double-click the postscript file to start Distiller and create the
PDF.

Miriam

You wrote.
>I'm using Frame 8.
>I have a book (28 chapters) with a TOC. I'm creating a PDF using the
File >
>Save As PDF command...
>I can make a PDF of the TOC on its own. Works fine...
>If I put the TOC in the book, I get this message in the log file where
the
>TOC starts:
>%%[  Error: undefined; OffendingCommand: pdfmark; ErrorInfo: Rect   ]%%

___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as kmcdaniel at pavtech.com.

Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com.

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com
or visit
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/kmcdaniel%40pavtech.
com

Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Framemaker 8 and Web Works Pro compatibility

[p cawthorne]

Hello,
I am about to upgrade from Framemaker 6 to version 8 and notice that
Webworks is no longer provided with Framemaker, I have several help projects
built using Webworks Pro and want to know if I can still use this software
with Frame Maker 8 or if I need to purchase a new online help software? If I
have to purchase a new one, does anybody have any recommendations?
 Thanks
Mulholland

Feathering conflicts (shortcomings?)

[Bodvar Bjorgvinsson]

I am trying to feather a book. However, there is one problem.
The book is The New Testament, that I have posted about several times
this summer. I ended up setting it up structured, as I ran into too
many problems with the InDesign-to-Word files. All that went well,
and, of course, I decided to save the last things until last. :-)

I have told about my problems with balanced columns (some lines
vanishing below the bottom of the text frame). This still is a
problem. In some files I can just uncheck that feature, but not
everywhere, I think.

FrameMaker lacks in Drop cap letters. All chapters have to be set in a
similar way, so I had to set them into an Run-into-paragraph Anchored
frame. This was a rather time consuming work. Which seemingly also
kills any possibility of feathering. This is also documented almost
not to show (pg 303 in the User Guide). :-(

If I feather, the flow only feathers on pages with no chapter numbers!

I have found no way around the anchored frame.

Does anyone have a way around this problem?

I am suddenly in a tight schedule as I have to deliver the final pdf
tomorrow instead of next weekend.

Thanks beforehand for any help.

Bodvar Bjorgvinsson

Framemaker 8 and Web Works Pro compatibility

[Art Campbell]

A number of other threads here and on Adobe's site have reported that
you need the latest version of Webwork's software to be compatible
with 8... ePublisher 9.2.something

Another alternative is to export from FM through Omsys's MIF2Go
program, which is what I've done for several years.

Cheers,
Art

On 9/11/07, p cawthorne  wrote:
> Hello,
> I am about to upgrade from Framemaker 6 to version 8 and notice that
> Webworks is no longer provided with Framemaker, I have several help projects
> built using Webworks Pro and want to know if I can still use this software
> with Frame Maker 8 or if I need to purchase a new online help software? If I
> have to purchase a new one, does anybody have any recommendations?
>  Thanks
> Mulholland
> ___
>


-- 
Art Campbell art.campbell at 
gmail.com
  "... In my opinion, there's nothing in this world beats a '52 Vincent
   and a redheaded girl." -- Richard Thompson
 No disclaimers apply.
 DoD 358

Feathering conflicts (shortcomings?)

[Rick Quatro]

Hi Bodvar,

One clunky way of doing drop caps is to use subscript for the first 
character and set large values for your subscript values. Choose Format > 
Document > Text Options and try 280% for the Subscript Size and 115% for the 
Offset. Make sure the Line Spacing on your paragraphs is Fixed. You will 
still have to use non-breaking spaces to bump the second line past the drop 
cap character, but overall, this is easier than using anchored frames.

The other solution is to avoid feathering altogether. If you set all of your 
space above/below values to be muliples of your leading values, you can use 
Baseline Synchronization instead of Feathering to get balanced and aligned 
columns.

I will send you a drop cap sample to you separately. Thanks.

Rick Quatro
Carmen Publishing
585-659-8267
www.frameexpert.com


>I am trying to feather a book. However, there is one problem.
> The book is The New Testament, that I have posted about several times
> this summer. I ended up setting it up structured, as I ran into too
> many problems with the InDesign-to-Word files. All that went well,
> and, of course, I decided to save the last things until last. :-)
>
> I have told about my problems with balanced columns (some lines
> vanishing below the bottom of the text frame). This still is a
> problem. In some files I can just uncheck that feature, but not
> everywhere, I think.
>
> FrameMaker lacks in Drop cap letters. All chapters have to be set in a
> similar way, so I had to set them into an Run-into-paragraph Anchored
> frame. This was a rather time consuming work. Which seemingly also
> kills any possibility of feathering. This is also documented almost
> not to show (pg 303 in the User Guide). :-(
>
> If I feather, the flow only feathers on pages with no chapter numbers!
>
> I have found no way around the anchored frame.
>
> Does anyone have a way around this problem?
>
> I am suddenly in a tight schedule as I have to deliver the final pdf
> tomorrow instead of next weekend.
>
> Thanks beforehand for any help.
>
> Bodvar Bjorgvinsson
> ___

fixed vs. relative paths in xrefs

[Rene Stephenson]

Someone responded offlist with the solution:
  FM adjusts the path to an xref target, if the source (from which
you copied) and the target (to which you paste) are in different
folders. ...Just copy the file with the xrefs into the same folder 
  as the file into which you want to paste. Then copy the xref.

  Worked like a charm!! Thanks, WR!

  Rene


Stuart Rogers  wrote:
  Rene Stephenson wrote:
> 
> My question is, I looked in the MIF and I don't see any path stuff
> that I could just do a find/replace to make it point to the right
> path. Is there any way to change the paths without having to manually
> reinsert each and every xref?? ALL ideas welcome.
> 

Search for XRefSrcFile.

Good luck,

-- 
Stuart Rogers
Technical Communicator
Phoenix Geophysics Limited
Toronto, ON, Canada
+1 (416) 491-7340 x 325

srogers phoenix-geophysics com

"Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home, and when he grows
up, he'll never be able to merge his car onto the freeway."

- anon.