RE: Switching to Structured FrameMaker

[Randall C. Reed]

In my experience, it is easier to teach structured FM than unstructured,
because you have a clearly designed output document target for new
writers to use as an example and they can't jury-rig fifteen different
ways to skin the same cat. You must have good tools, EDD and templates,
and must train them on how to access critical features like attributes
and variables.

What is VERY difficult, however, is working in a MIXED structured and
unstructured environment wherein writers have to switch mental gears
depending on the project. They try to use para tag methods to manipulate
structured elements and all their fixes go away after the next book
update and reapplication of the EDD.

Where structure shines is in an environment of multiple writers and few
editors where a single look-and-feel must be established and maintained
across a lot of publications. In those cases, demanding that all
submissions contain valid structure and then reapplying the EDD and
removing all manual overrides upon submission goes a long way towards
maintaining specifications and standards. Those writers who cannot or
will not abide by the structure rules can be easily identified and
either retrained or replaced.

Structured FM is an effective truth-teller in a multiple-writer
environment, provided efficient and competent tools and training have
been provided.

Randall C. Reed
Senior Technical Writer
Technical Publications
Total Life Cycle Support
(o) 843-574-3899
(c) 843-906-5522

-Original Message-
From: framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com
[mailto:framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Allison
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 9:44 AM
To: framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Re: Switching to Structured FrameMaker

I've gotten some wonderful responses both on the list and privately. I'd
begun to think that, since a lot of my clients rely on freelancers who
come and go, structured FrameMaker might be the way to ensure
consistency across documents. 

Then it occurred to me, how hard is it to get writers on board with
structured documentation?

If you hire a new person and they don't know structured FrameMaker, how
much coaching do you have to do to get them started?

And . . . does it really make the usual craziness about autonumbering
and variables in headers, footers, TOCs, LOTs, LOFs, and Indexes . .  GO
AWAY? (I mean, in this situation: new contractor comes on board, gets
new template, at some point copies text from an older doc with
conflicting paragraph tags; variables and cross-references break;
frustration and hair-tearing ensue.)

The elimination of that struggle would be worth a lot.

Thanks one and all.
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as
randall.r...@forceprotection.net.

Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com.

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com
or visit
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/randall.reed%40force
protection.net

Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
This e-mail is intended solely for the person or entity to which it is 
addressed and may contain legally privileged and CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 
intended solely for viewing by the addressee.  If you are not the intended 
recipient, you should immediately stop reading this message and delete it from 
your system.  Any review, dissemination, copying, printing or other use of this 
e-mail by persons or entities other than the addressee is prohibited.  Please 
notify the Helpdesk at helpd...@forceprotection.net if you have received this 
message in error.
This material contains confidential and proprietary information of Force 
Protection, Inc. and its subsidiaries. Copying this material or disclosing such 
information to others without the Company's prior consent is prohibited. This 
material also contains technical data relating to a Defense Article within 
the meaning of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR Part 120). 
The transfer or disclosure of this information to any non-U.S. person or 
company without an export license approved by the United States Department of 
State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls is prohibited under federal law.

___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as arch...@mail-archive.com.

Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com.

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

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

Switching to Structured FrameMaker

[Randall C. Reed]

In my experience, it is easier to teach structured FM than unstructured,
because you have a clearly designed output document target for new
writers to use as an example and they can't jury-rig fifteen different
ways to skin the same cat. You must have good tools, EDD and templates,
and must train them on how to access critical features like attributes
and variables.

What is VERY difficult, however, is working in a MIXED structured and
unstructured environment wherein writers have to switch mental gears
depending on the project. They try to use para tag methods to manipulate
structured elements and all their "fixes" go away after the next book
update and reapplication of the EDD.

Where structure shines is in an environment of multiple writers and few
editors where a single look-and-feel must be established and maintained
across a lot of publications. In those cases, demanding that all
submissions contain valid structure and then reapplying the EDD and
removing all manual overrides upon submission goes a long way towards
maintaining specifications and standards. Those writers who cannot or
will not abide by the structure rules can be easily identified and
either retrained or replaced.

Structured FM is an effective truth-teller in a multiple-writer
environment, provided efficient and competent tools and training have
been provided.

Randall C. Reed
Senior Technical Writer
Technical Publications
Total Life Cycle Support
(o) 843-574-3899
(c) 843-906-5522

-Original Message-
From: framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com
[mailto:framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Allison
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 9:44 AM
To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Re: Switching to Structured FrameMaker

I've gotten some wonderful responses both on the list and privately. I'd
begun to think that, since a lot of my clients rely on freelancers who
come and go, structured FrameMaker might be the way to ensure
consistency across documents. 

Then it occurred to me, how hard is it to get writers on board with
structured documentation?

If you hire a new person and they don't know structured FrameMaker, how
much coaching do you have to do to get them started?

And . . . does it really make the usual craziness about autonumbering
and variables in headers, footers, TOCs, LOTs, LOFs, and Indexes . .  GO
AWAY? (I mean, in this situation: new contractor comes on board, gets
new template, at some point copies text from an older doc with
conflicting paragraph tags; variables and cross-references break;
frustration and hair-tearing ensue.)

The elimination of that struggle would be worth a lot.

Thanks one and all.
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as
randall.reed at forceprotection.net.

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/randall.reed%40force
protection.net

Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
This e-mail is intended solely for the person or entity to which it is 
addressed and may contain legally privileged and CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 
intended solely for viewing by the addressee.  If you are not the intended 
recipient, you should immediately stop reading this message and delete it from 
your system.  Any review, dissemination, copying, printing or other use of this 
e-mail by persons or entities other than the addressee is prohibited.  Please 
notify the Helpdesk at helpdesk at forceprotection.net if you have received 
this message in error.
This material contains confidential and proprietary information of Force 
Protection, Inc. and its subsidiaries. Copying this material or disclosing such 
information to others without the Company's prior consent is prohibited. This 
material also contains technical data relating to a "Defense Article" within 
the meaning of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR Part 120). 
The transfer or disclosure of this information to any non-U.S. person or 
company without an export license approved by the United States Department of 
State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls is prohibited under federal law.

Using Attributes on the Reference Page

[Randall C. Reed]

FM Pilgrims:

 

We are trying to perfect some standard TOC and Index features in the
Reference pages and are having issues with things that apparently used
to work in 6.xx and don't appear to work anymore with Structured 7.2:
This is a MIL SPEC 40051-2 project, which requires a 4-digit work
package number element (wpnum) for each file, from 0001 to approx
0400+. The leading zeroes are crucial, as the spec requires four-digits
to appear on the page, page number, TOC, and Index.

 

Problem: We cannot get Frame 7.2 to recognize the coding to pick up the
attribute leadingzero[wpnum], which sets the number of zeroes to 3 for
WPs 1 to 9, 2 for WPs 10 to 99, and the default 1 for WPs 100 and up. It
should work, but it does. We believe it worked on older versions of FM
that we used in the past, but it won't work now. (We suspect some
unannounced tinkering by Adobe that has had unintended consequences...)
Looks like we are forced to drop the whole attribute idea and just use
the system variable $chapnum to generate the work package number and
basically treat it like text so that it retains the leading zeroes,
which would normally be truncated by FM. But, that means essentially
hard-keying wpnum values into each file, which is a step backwards, in
my mind, from what FM should be able to do for us automatically.

 

1.  What changed between 6.xx and 7.2 to make attributes a no-go on
the Reference page?
2.  What is everyone else who does 40051-2 compliant mil spec pubs
doing for wpnum in each package? Is there another obvious approach I
am missing?
3.  Am I being completely addled or was there really a way to do
this in the olden days?

 

TIA!

 

Randall C. Reed

Senior Technical Writer

Technical Publications

Total Life Cycle Support

Force Protection Industries, Inc.

(o) 843-574-3899

(c) 843-906-5522

 

This e-mail is intended solely for the person or entity to which it is 
addressed and may contain legally privileged and CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 
intended solely for viewing by the addressee.  If you are not the intended 
recipient, you should immediately stop reading this message and delete it from 
your system.  Any review, dissemination, copying, printing or other use of this 
e-mail by persons or entities other than the addressee is prohibited.  Please 
notify the Helpdesk at helpd...@forceprotection.net if you have received this 
message in error.
This material contains confidential and proprietary information of Force 
Protection, Inc. and its subsidiaries. Copying this material or disclosing such 
information to others without the Company's prior consent is prohibited. This 
material also contains technical data relating to a Defense Article within 
the meaning of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR Part 120). 
The transfer or disclosure of this information to any non-U.S. person or 
company without an export license approved by the United States Department of 
State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls is prohibited under federal law.
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as arch...@mail-archive.com.

Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com.

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

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

Using Attributes on the Reference Page

[Randall C. Reed]

FM Pilgrims:



We are trying to perfect some standard TOC and Index features in the
Reference pages and are having "issues" with things that apparently used
to work in 6.xx and don't appear to work anymore with Structured 7.2:
This is a MIL SPEC 40051-2 project, which requires a 4-digit work
package number element () for each file, from 0001 to approx
0400+. The leading zeroes are crucial, as the spec requires four-digits
to appear on the page, page number, TOC, and Index.



Problem: We cannot get Frame 7.2 to recognize the coding to pick up the
attribute <leadingzero[wpnum]>, which sets the number of zeroes to 3 for
WPs 1 to 9, 2 for WPs 10 to 99, and the default 1 for WPs 100 and up. It
should work, but it does. We believe it worked on older versions of FM
that we used in the past, but it won't work now. (We suspect some
unannounced tinkering by Adobe that has had unintended consequences...)
Looks like we are forced to drop the whole attribute idea and just use
the system variable <$chapnum> to generate the work package number and
basically treat it like text so that it retains the leading zeroes,
which would normally be truncated by FM. But, that means essentially
hard-keying  values into each file, which is a step backwards, in
my mind, from what FM should be able to do for us automatically.



1.  What changed between 6.xx and 7.2 to make attributes a no-go on
the Reference page?
2.  What is everyone else who does 40051-2 compliant mil spec pubs
doing for  in each package? Is there another obvious approach I
am missing?
3.  Am I being completely addled or was there really a way to do
this in the "olden days"?



TIA!



Randall C. Reed

Senior Technical Writer

Technical Publications

Total Life Cycle Support

Force Protection Industries, Inc.

(o) 843-574-3899

(c) 843-906-5522



This e-mail is intended solely for the person or entity to which it is 
addressed and may contain legally privileged and CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 
intended solely for viewing by the addressee.  If you are not the intended 
recipient, you should immediately stop reading this message and delete it from 
your system.  Any review, dissemination, copying, printing or other use of this 
e-mail by persons or entities other than the addressee is prohibited.  Please 
notify the Helpdesk at helpdesk at forceprotection.net if you have received 
this message in error.
This material contains confidential and proprietary information of Force 
Protection, Inc. and its subsidiaries. Copying this material or disclosing such 
information to others without the Company's prior consent is prohibited. This 
material also contains technical data relating to a "Defense Article" within 
the meaning of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR Part 120). 
The transfer or disclosure of this information to any non-U.S. person or 
company without an export license approved by the United States Department of 
State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls is prohibited under federal law.

Opinions on FrameMaker Content Management Systems

[Randall C. Reed]

I am curious to see if there is any consensus from Framers as to the
preferred Component Content Management system or Source Control system
for a small-to-medium publications department in a small-to-medium
company running FrameMaker 7.2 on a shared network in an IT environment
that is SQL-centric. Should we be thinking little ball (Visual Source
Safe) or big ball (enterprise content management)? Any opinions
welcome.

 

TIA!

 

Randall C. Reed

Senior Technical Writer

Technical Publications

Total Life Cycle Support

Force Protection Industries, Inc.

(o) 843-574-3899

(c) 843-906-5522

 

This material contains confidential and proprietary information of Force 
Protection, Inc. and its subsidiaries. Copying this material or disclosing such 
information to others without the Company’s prior consent is prohibited. This 
material also contains technical data relating to a Defense Article within 
the meaning of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR Part 120). 
The transfer or disclosure of this information to any non-U.S. person or 
company without an export license approved by the United States Department of 
State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls is prohibited under federal law.
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as arch...@mail-archive.com.

Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com.

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

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

Opinions on FrameMaker Content Management Systems

[Randall C. Reed]

I am curious to see if there is any consensus from Framers as to the
preferred Component Content Management system or Source Control system
for a small-to-medium publications department in a small-to-medium
company running FrameMaker 7.2 on a shared network in an IT environment
that is SQL-centric. Should we be thinking "little ball" (Visual Source
Safe) or "big ball" (enterprise content management)? Any opinions
welcome.



TIA!



Randall C. Reed

Senior Technical Writer

Technical Publications

Total Life Cycle Support

Force Protection Industries, Inc.

(o) 843-574-3899

(c) 843-906-5522



-- next part --
This material contains confidential and proprietary information of Force 
Protection, Inc. and its subsidiaries. Copying this material or disclosing such 
information to others without the Company?s prior consent is prohibited. This 
material also contains technical data relating to a "Defense Article" within 
the meaning of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR Part 120). 
The transfer or disclosure of this information to any non-U.S. person or 
company without an export license approved by the United States Department of 
State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls is prohibited under federal law.

Correction: Bad Autonumbers

[Randall C. Reed]

 Ouch! Can you tell I am exhausted??? Replace "page" with "paragraph",
please. Does that make any more sense, or am I totally burned out beyond
all belief? <wink!>

R.

PS: Excellent point: I should have realized that ALL flavors of
autonumbers will be treated the same. That doesn't solve my package
number problem. But it is good to know. Thanks!

-----------
Randall C. Reed wrote:

> I cannot get a "work package number" autonumber to work properly in 
> the files at the beginning of the book.
> "P:000<n+>" just returns "0001".
> I've gone into the document menu on both the book and individual files

> and set the "Page" numbering feature to "Continue."

But the autonumber isn't a page number, it's a paragraph number. You
need to set paragraph numbering to continue. Note, however, that this
affects all paragraph autonumber series; you can't have, for instance,
figure numbers restart while your package numbers continue. 

Richard


--
Richard G. Combs
Senior Technical Writer
Polycom, Inc.
richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom
303-223-5111
--
rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom
303-777-0436
--





This material contains confidential and proprietary information of Force 
Protection, Inc. and its subsidiaries. Copying this material or disclosing such 
information to others without the Company's prior consent is prohibited. This 
material may also contain technical data relating to a "Defense Article" within 
the meaning of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR Part 120). 
The transfer or disclosure of this information to any non-U.S. person or 
company without any required export license approved by the United States 
Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls may be prohibited 
under federal law.
Force Protection Industries, Inc.

Bad Autonumbers

[Randall C. Reed]

Good point Fred. My craziness is due to the fact that some are working
continuously, then another file comes up and BANG, I'm back to 001
again.  Not good...

Thanks!

R.



From: Fred Ridder [mailto:docu...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 10:23 AM
To: Combs, Richard; Randall C. Reed; framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: Bad Autonumbers




richard.combs at Polycom.com wrote:

> But the autonumber isn't a page number, it's a paragraph number. You
> need to set paragraph numbering to continue. Note, however, that this
> affects all paragraph autonumber series; you can't have, for instance,
> figure numbers restart while your package numbers continue. 


Just to amplify a bit:

If you set a file's paragraph numbering properties to "Restart", you 
cannot have a mixture of continuing and resetting counter values. 
The "Restart" setting affects *all* paragraph numbering series and 
there is no way for any of them to continue from the preceding 
file's value. 

But if you set the properties to "Continue", it *is* possible to reset 
a specific paragraph numbering series by formatting a paragraph 
with an autonumber formula that explicitly sets the appropriate 
counter elements in the series definition to the desired values.

Fred Ridder 





Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live
OneCare! Try now!
<http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hot
mailnews>  

This material contains confidential and proprietary information of Force 
Protection, Inc. and its subsidiaries. Copying this material or disclosing such 
information to others without the Company's prior consent is prohibited. This 
material may also contain technical data relating to a "Defense Article" within 
the meaning of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR Part 120). 
The transfer or disclosure of this information to any non-U.S. person or 
company without any required export license approved by the United States 
Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls may be prohibited 
under federal law.
Force Protection Industries, Inc.

Bad Autonumbers

[Randall C. Reed]

Listers:

Unstructured Frame 7.2 on XP V2002 SP2: I've got 400 files in the book.
I cannot get a work package number autonumber to work properly in the
files at the beginning of the book. P:000n+ just returns 0001.
I've gone into the document menu on both the book and individual files
and set the Page numbering feature to Continue.  Updated book
numerous times. Re-imported formats. When I add a hard number to the
autonumber in an individual file, it immediately responds with the
correct value on the page, so apparently the tag and function are
working properly.

- What will fix these random bad autonumbers?

- If I hardwire the bad autonumber (change it from P:000n+ to
P:0008, for example) with the following n+ numbers pick up normally
(P:0009, etc., in this example)?

This is crazy. It is just an autonumber. I've been using FM for 13 years
and I know it is not suppose to be this hard to troubleshoot an
autonumber problem. Except for digesting 400 files in the book, it
should work like a champ, but it is not. What stupid thing am I doing
wrong?

TIA,

Randall C. Reed
Senior Technical Writer
Force Protection Industries, Inc. 

This material contains confidential and proprietary information of Force 
Protection, Inc. and its subsidiaries. Copying this material or disclosing such 
information to others without the Company's prior consent is prohibited. This 
material may also contain technical data relating to a Defense Article within 
the meaning of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR Part 120). 
The transfer or disclosure of this information to any non-U.S. person or 
company without any required export license approved by the United States 
Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls may be prohibited 
under federal law.
Force Protection Industries, Inc.


___


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.

Bad Autonumbers

[Randall C. Reed]

Listers:

Unstructured Frame 7.2 on XP V2002 SP2: I've got 400 files in the book.
I cannot get a "work package number" autonumber to work properly in the
files at the beginning of the book. "P:000<n+>" just returns "0001".
I've gone into the document menu on both the book and individual files
and set the "Page" numbering feature to "Continue."  Updated book
numerous times. Re-imported formats. When I add a hard number to the
autonumber in an individual file, it immediately responds with the
correct value on the page, so apparently the tag and function are
working properly.

- What will fix these random "bad" autonumbers?

- If I "hardwire" the bad autonumber (change it from "P:000<n+>" to
"P:0008", for example) with the following <n+> numbers pick up normally
("P:0009", etc., in this example)?

This is crazy. It is just an autonumber. I've been using FM for 13 years
and I know it is not suppose to be this hard to troubleshoot an
autonumber problem. Except for digesting 400 files in the book, it
should work like a champ, but it is not. What stupid thing am I doing
wrong?

TIA,

Randall C. Reed
Senior Technical Writer
Force Protection Industries, Inc. 

This material contains confidential and proprietary information of Force 
Protection, Inc. and its subsidiaries. Copying this material or disclosing such 
information to others without the Company's prior consent is prohibited. This 
material may also contain technical data relating to a "Defense Article" within 
the meaning of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR Part 120). 
The transfer or disclosure of this information to any non-U.S. person or 
company without any required export license approved by the United States 
Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls may be prohibited 
under federal law.
Force Protection Industries, Inc.

FrameMaker Server User Interface??

[Randall C. Reed]

A few years ago, we installed a server-based version of Frame: No
documentation, little product knowledge on the part of the Adobe
customer service folks. Now, new company, same need. This time, our IT
department tells us that we need  software programming to build the
interface for the control/security/access features. to the tune of
$25,000 worth of software programming consultant time. This floored me
since the last time it was a single CD that a one-person IT department
installed in a few hours.
Has the Server version changed?
And the Adobe site says that Server needs a companion and must be
integrated into a solution before it is ready for use. You can either
purchase third-part solutions (From Datazone or Finite Matters Limited)
or you can build your own solution using Frame Developers Kit.
I don't recall us using FDK or third-party solution before. What
experiences do other Listers have for FM Server?
TIA,

Randy


This material contains confidential and proprietary information of Force 
Protection, Inc. and its subsidiaries. Copying this material or disclosing such 
information to others without the Company's prior consent is prohibited. This 
material may also contain technical data relating to a Defense Article within 
the meaning of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR Part 120). 
The transfer or disclosure of this information to any non-U.S. person or 
company without any required export license approved by the United States 
Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls may be prohibited 
under federal law.
Force Protection Industries, Inc.


___


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.

FrameMaker Server "User Interface"??

[Randall C. Reed]

A few years ago, we installed a server-based version of Frame: No
documentation, little product knowledge on the part of the Adobe
customer service folks. Now, new company, same need. This time, our IT
department tells us that we need  "software programming to build the
interface for the control/security/access features." to the tune of
$25,000 worth of software programming consultant time. This floored me
since the last time it was a single CD that a one-person IT department
installed in a few hours.
Has the Server version changed?
And the Adobe site says that Server needs a companion and "must be
integrated into a solution before it is ready for use. You can either
purchase third-part solutions (From Datazone or Finite Matters Limited)
or you can build your own solution using Frame Developers Kit."
I don't recall us using FDK or third-party solution before. What
experiences do other Listers have for FM Server?
TIA,

Randy


This material contains confidential and proprietary information of Force 
Protection, Inc. and its subsidiaries. Copying this material or disclosing such 
information to others without the Company's prior consent is prohibited. This 
material may also contain technical data relating to a "Defense Article" within 
the meaning of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR Part 120). 
The transfer or disclosure of this information to any non-U.S. person or 
company without any required export license approved by the United States 
Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls may be prohibited 
under federal law.
Force Protection Industries, Inc.

FrameMaker Tech Writer Positions in Charleston, SC

[Randall C. Reed]

Hello Listers:

Force Protection Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer of a
highly-publicized line of armored wheeled vehicles currently in use in
Iraq and Afghanistan. The Buffalo and the Cheetah have been seen on the
major news networks, CNN, 20/20, etc. Its an exciting, high-tempo place
to work as the vehicles are in great demand for the fight against IEDs
and the general war on terrorism.

We have immediate openings for four technical writer positions. This is
a high-priority need. FrameMaker skills essential. Strong writing skills
required. Technical background in manufacturing, automotive, military
documentation, electrical harnesses, etc. desirable.

Full details are available on the company's web site:

http://www.forceprotection.net/about/employment.html.

Thanks,

Randall C. Reed

This material contains confidential and proprietary information of Force 
Protection, Inc. and its subsidiaries. Copying this material or disclosing such 
information to others without the Company's prior consent is prohibited. This 
material may also contain technical data relating to a Defense Article within 
the meaning of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR Part 120). 
The transfer or disclosure of this information to any non-U.S. person or 
company without any required export license approved by the United States 
Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls may be prohibited 
under federal law.
Force Protection Industries, Inc.


___


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.

FrameMaker Tech Writer Positions in Charleston, SC

[Randall C. Reed]

Hello Listers:

Force Protection Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer of a
highly-publicized line of armored wheeled vehicles currently in use in
Iraq and Afghanistan. The Buffalo and the Cheetah have been seen on the
major news networks, CNN, 20/20, etc. Its an exciting, high-tempo place
to work as the vehicles are in great demand for the fight against IEDs
and the general war on terrorism.

We have immediate openings for four technical writer positions. This is
a high-priority need. FrameMaker skills essential. Strong writing skills
required. Technical background in manufacturing, automotive, military
documentation, electrical harnesses, etc. desirable.

Full details are available on the company's web site:

http://www.forceprotection.net/about/employment.html.

Thanks,

Randall C. Reed

This material contains confidential and proprietary information of Force 
Protection, Inc. and its subsidiaries. Copying this material or disclosing such 
information to others without the Company's prior consent is prohibited. This 
material may also contain technical data relating to a "Defense Article" within 
the meaning of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR Part 120). 
The transfer or disclosure of this information to any non-U.S. person or 
company without any required export license approved by the United States 
Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls may be prohibited 
under federal law.
Force Protection Industries, Inc.

RE: [BULK] RE: Reasons to structure

[Randall C. Reed]

Russ West says: It is so important for any tech writer to learn about
structured content...

The funny thing is, in the majority of cases, we are not in a position
to proselytize for or against structured documentation. That's usually
decided several pay grades higher by contract deliverable or other
edict. We rarely. If ever, get to choose or even recommend! But a TW who
wishes to remain employable should be able to respond to structured or
unstructured requirements by being able to work in both. The general
trend in technical publishing, I predict (duh!), will require more
automation, more reusability, more interchangeability of data, not less.
If I had to bet on a winner in that horse race, my money would be on
more structured documentation, not less, in our collective future.
 

-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
s.com] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 8:09 AM
To: framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: [BULK] RE: Reasons to structure
Importance: Low

Jeremy, I don't think that is harsh at all. What I think is harsh is the
constant discouragement from learning and professional development from
certain members of this list.  It is so important for any tech writer to
learn about structured content, and I do not think I am any smarter than
anyone else just because I have expertise in structure. The only
difference with me is that I just spent the last five years being
interested in it, and I would like others to be interested in it as
well. And that excuse about not having time is really quite worn out.
If you work in the tech industry and don't have time to learn, your fate
is sealed.

And by the way, HTML is a perfect example of fully structured content,
and the web is a good example of the miracles that are possible with it.
Thanks for bringing that up.
 

Message: 29
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:46:00 -0800
From: Jeremy H. Griffith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Reasons to Structure
To: framers@lists.frameusers.com
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:56:49 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

Jeremy Griffith wrote [referring to semantic markup]:

You can do the same with paragraph formats, too.  But you can do all 
that in UNstructured docs just as easily as in structured.
Maybe *more* easily, when you factor in the time to set up your 
structure, and to modify it when you make changes, which is major.

I've only been able to identify one situation in which structured 
Frame can do this better than unstructured, and that's when you'd want

nested element tags within a paragraph, since you cam't nest character

formats.  (There are easy workarounds for creating the equivalent of 
nested paragraph formats, such as using start/end formats and/or 
markers.)  OTOH, I have yet to see a non-hypothetical case where such 
nested char formats were really needed...

Structured Frame is designed for large pubs groups where standard 
document designs are required, perhaps for ISO 9000, perhaps for other

corporate policy reasons.  For smaller groups, and especially for lone

writers, the setup costs (time and consultants) are likely to exceed 
the benefits, much like a CMS (Content Management System) can.  There 
are excellent consultants around, many on this list, for whom it is a 
breeze.  If you decide to go this way, hire one.
It will prevent much anguish and hair loss.

This is misinformation, on nearly all counts. 

Isn't that a tad harsh, Russ?  My point, which you appear to have
missed, is that (as Richard said) semantic markup is good, *and* that
you can do it in unstructured Frame.  Do you deny this fact?

I also said that for small groups, the setup costs (time and
consultants) are likely to exceed the benefits.  I'll stand by that
assessment, based on using Frame in both its unstructured
*and* structured (formerly known as FrameBuilder) forms over many,
many years, originally on a Sun 2...  I didn't say there are *no*
benefits, just that the costs may be greater.  Do you assert that the
costs are always insignificant, then?

I am a lone writer who is completely dependent on structured Frame. 
Without it, I would need at least twice the manpower to handle the 
busywork that it does. Furthermore, I adhere to no industry standard 
and make changes to my structured template frequently.

All well and good... but what *else* are you?  An expert in structure,
perhaps?  How long have you worked with structure?
As I said, There are excellent consultants around, many on this list,
for whom it is a breeze.  You are one of the four or five I'd think of
first...  Here's the first line on your home page: Welcome to West
Street Consulting, your home for structured FrameMaker(r) plugins and
other utilities.  I've also written plugins that work with structured
Frame (Mif2Go does, just fine), but I hardly consider myself a
representative Frame user... nor would I assume that everyone would 

[BULK] RE: Reasons to structure

[Randall C. Reed]

Russ West says: "It is so important for any tech writer to learn about
structured content..."

The funny thing is, in the majority of cases, we are not in a position
to proselytize for or against structured documentation. That's usually
decided several pay grades higher by contract deliverable or other
edict. We rarely. If ever, get to choose or even recommend! But a TW who
wishes to remain employable should be able to respond to structured or
unstructured requirements by being able to work in both. The general
trend in technical publishing, I predict (duh!), will require more
automation, more reusability, more interchangeability of data, not less.
If I had to bet on a winner in that horse race, my money would be on
more structured documentation, not less, in our collective future.


-Original Message-
From:
framers-bounces+randall.reed=forceprotection.net at lists.frameusers.com
[mailto:framers-bounces+randall.reed=forceprotection.net at lists.frameuser
s.com] On Behalf Of russ at weststreetconsulting.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 8:09 AM
To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: [BULK] RE: Reasons to structure
Importance: Low

Jeremy, I don't think that is harsh at all. What I think is harsh is the
constant discouragement from learning and professional development from
certain members of this list.  It is so important for any tech writer to
learn about structured content, and I do not think I am any smarter than
anyone else just because I have expertise in structure. The only
difference with me is that I just spent the last five years being
interested in it, and I would like others to be interested in it as
well. And that excuse about "not having time" is really quite worn out.
If you work in the tech industry and don't have time to learn, your fate
is sealed.

And by the way, HTML is a perfect example of fully structured content,
and the web is a good example of the miracles that are possible with it.
Thanks for bringing that up.


Message: 29
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:46:00 -0800
From: "Jeremy H. Griffith" 
Subject: Re: Reasons to Structure
To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
Message-ID: <2ib7t2p94cn4i7lv0j116s5svf7bhpld1u at 4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:56:49 -0700, russ at weststreetconsulting.com
wrote:

>Jeremy Griffith wrote [referring to semantic markup]:
>
>>You can do the same with paragraph formats, too.  But you can do all 
>>that in UNstructured docs just as easily as in structured.
>>Maybe *more* easily, when you factor in the time to set up your 
>>structure, and to modify it when you make changes, which is major.
>>
>>I've only been able to identify one situation in which structured 
>>Frame can do this better than unstructured, and that's when you'd want

>>nested element tags within a paragraph, since you cam't nest character

>>formats.  (There are easy workarounds for creating the equivalent of 
>>nested paragraph formats, such as using start/end formats and/or 
>>markers.)  OTOH, I have yet to see a non-hypothetical case where such 
>>nested char formats were really needed...
>>
>>Structured Frame is designed for large pubs groups where standard 
>>document designs are required, perhaps for ISO 9000, perhaps for other

>>corporate policy reasons.  For smaller groups, and especially for lone

>>writers, the setup costs (time and consultants) are likely to exceed 
>>the benefits, much like a CMS (Content Management System) can.  There 
>>are excellent consultants around, many on this list, for whom it is a 
>>breeze.  If you decide to go this way, hire one.
>>It will prevent much anguish and hair loss.

>This is misinformation, on nearly all counts. 

Isn't that a tad harsh, Russ?  My point, which you appear to have
missed, is that (as Richard said) semantic markup is good, *and* that
you can do it in unstructured Frame.  Do you deny this fact?

I also said that for small groups, "the setup costs (time and
consultants) are likely to exceed the benefits".  I'll stand by that
assessment, based on using Frame in both its unstructured
*and* structured (formerly known as "FrameBuilder") forms over many,
many years, originally on a Sun 2...  I didn't say there are *no*
benefits, just that the costs may be greater.  Do you assert that the
costs are always insignificant, then?

>I am a lone writer who is completely dependent on structured Frame. 
>Without it, I would need at least twice the manpower to handle the 
>busywork that it does. Furthermore, I adhere to no industry standard 
>and make changes to my structured template frequently.

All well and good... but what *else* are you?  An expert in structure,
perhaps?  How long have you worked with structure?
As I said, "There are excellent consultants around, many on this list,
for whom it is a breeze."  You are one of the four or five I'd think of
first...  Here's the first line on your home page: "Welcome to West
Street Consulting, your home for 

List of Figures

[Randall C. Reed]

I slept through this part of Professor O'Keefe's lecture on using
building blocks when making generated lists, so I'm stumped on what
should be very easy:

I'm doing an LOF that needs to be:

  tab  tab 

Where the Page Number is a compound running H/F = ( -
)

I got <$pagenum>, but that just gets me the last half.

What building block do I use to get both parts of the running H/F?

Color me "Duh?"

Thanks,
Randy





This material contains confidential and proprietary information of Force 
Protection, Inc. and its subsidiaries. Copying this material or disclosing such 
information to others without the Company's prior consent is prohibited. This 
material may also contain technical data relating to a "Defense Article" within 
the meaning of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR Part 120). 
The transfer or disclosure of this information to any non-U.S. person or 
company without any required export license approved by the United States 
Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls may be prohibited 
under federal law.
Force Protection Industries, Inc.