As new tools come out, companies will not expect you to know more than
the most common ones. There is a lot more to technical writing than the
authoring tool.
Regards,
Shmuel Wolfson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 8:29 PM -0500 3/4/07, Sean Pollock wrote:
Why be afraid of Frame's possible
Knowing how technology works, I'd prefer to build on a
working, proven platform and expand it to reach new
heights. In other words, why be afraid of FrameMaker
for the future? It's a great product design and
doesn't need changing.
Programs like mySQL may have eternal life for the
same reason
]
Subject: Re: Frame's future
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 10:36:35 -0500
What concerns me is that many of these tools are Enterprise level.
Meaning that they are too expensive to be purchased by a single
person, and often require a server from which to run. What that
means
Except for the fibbing part. I don't advocate saying you know
something you don't, even if learning it is a non-issue. I advocate
being up front about it and talk about the tech stuff you do know.
Many times companies will then agree that tools are easy to learn and
that the concepts are
Precisely, and you should be prepared for the day when FrameMaker is
killed off by Adobe. If this tool is important to you, you should be
very, very afraid of its demise for the exact same reasons that Adobe
dropped it for the Mac.
I suspect the user base of FrameMaker comes into play too:
on it.
Sean Pollock
UGS Corp.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 11:28 PM
To: 'Frame Users'; 'Free Framers List'
Subject: RE: Frame's future
At 9:40 AM + 3/2/07, Gordon McLean wrote:
Sales
At 8:29 PM -0500 3/4/07, Sean Pollock wrote:
Why be afraid of Frame's possible demise? XML is the future, and Frame is
just a tool, and should never be the source. There will be (actually,
already are) new tools, Frame ain't all that anyway. Seems like I've been
using it forever--I look forward
a month later. I'm no Einstein, I just looked up the
information I needed.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 9:06 PM
To: 'Frame Users'; 'Free Framers List'
Subject: RE: Frame's future
At 8:29 PM
At 9:40 AM + 3/2/07, Gordon McLean wrote:
Sales figures will reveal the story.
What sells more, Photoshop or FrameMaker?
*yawns*
Gordon
Precisely, and you should be prepared for the day when FrameMaker is
killed off by Adobe. If this tool is important to you, you should be
very, very
At 9:37 AM -0600 3/2/07, Sam Beard wrote:
Scott,
This isn't exactly true. Microsoft CHOSE not to export IE for Mac OS
X. This was done partly because Apple has their own browser, Safari, and
partly because of the rise in popularity of Firefox, Opera, Camino, and
others. The last version of
On 3/2/07, John Sgammato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- snipped ---
And I have read enough about FrameMaker on the Mac. We know you're unhappy.
Adobe knows you're unhappy. All God's chillun' must know you're unhappy.
You have expressed your feelings about it quite well enough, thank you. The
Sales figures will reveal the story.
What sells more, Photoshop or FrameMaker?
*yawns*
Gordon
This email (and any attachments) is private and confidential, and is intended
solely for the
It seems to me the question of How to get a new Mac
version of FrameMaker? is resolved by the question
How to get more Macintosh users using FrameMaker?
I can't think of a way to solve that one quickly.
Maybe we can turn this into a contest?
The first thing is that Apple has to start
There's also the probability that the CS suite porting is taking place
in the US Adobe development center but Frame is coded by Adobe India
-- so the Mac skill set may not be where the FM code is.
On 3/1/07, Steve Rickaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 09:38 -0700 1/3/07, Graeme R Forbes wrote:
Considering how most companies spend their money on
the latest fad, or hot idea that the V.P. in charge
suddenly is convinced is the way to go (usually without
much real investigation), I don't see what the problem is.
and this is a legitimate and credible justification?
easier for us,
When someone stabs you in the back after you've been a very loyal
customer for nearly 20 years, you don't normally go running back for
more.
So what action are you going to take against Apple for dropping Classic
support from their Mactel machines? They stabbed you in the back, too,
didn't
On 1 Mar 2007, at 14:00, Mike Wickham wrote:
When someone stabs you in the back after you've been a very loyal
customer for nearly 20 years, you don't normally go running back for
more.
So what action are you going to take against Apple for dropping
Classic
support from their Mactel
Dov said:
Although MacOS X has UNIX underpinnings, the difficult
stuff relating to user interfaces, font access, output,
etc. is all exclusive to MacOS X
In other words, the difficult stuff has all been dealt with for
GoLive, Illustrator, InDesign, etc. etc. So Adobe employs people who
know
At 09:38 -0700 1/3/07, Graeme R Forbes wrote:
Although MacOS X has UNIX underpinnings, the difficult
stuff relating to user interfaces, font access, output,
etc. is all exclusive to MacOS X
In other words, the difficult stuff has all been dealt with for GoLive,
Illustrator, InDesign, etc. etc.
However, FrameMaker has a much older code base, so the effort to migrate it
to XCode would be proportionately greater. For all I know, some parts of
FrameMaker might be coded in Assembler for speed. If this is the case,
moving such code to a multi-platform production base such as XCode would be
Steve Rickaby wrote:
Although MacOS X has UNIX underpinnings, the difficult
stuff relating to user interfaces, font access, output,
etc. is all exclusive to MacOS X
In other words, the difficult stuff has all been dealt with for
GoLive, Illustrator, InDesign, etc. etc. So Adobe employs
Folks,
Worrying about whether the latest versions of FrameMaker are, or are
not, available for a particular OS and platform is not productive at
all. Whether we know and/or agree/disagree with Adobe's reasons for
dropping the Mac version is not anything we can or should waste any
[more] time on.
@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX
Dov said:
Although MacOS X has UNIX underpinnings, the difficult
stuff relating to user interfaces, font access, output,
etc. is all exclusive to MacOS X
In other words, the difficult stuff has all been dealt with for
GoLive
-Original Message-
From: Paul Findon
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:13 AM
To: Frame Users; Free Framers List; Steve Rickaby
Subject: Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX
Steve Rickaby wrote:
Although MacOS X has UNIX underpinnings, the difficult
stuff relating to user
Oops, sorry, Richard. my response was not aimed at your earlier
response. I just did a reply-all and should have trimmed out your
words.
Z
Syed Zaeem Hosain wrote:
Folks,
Worrying about whether the latest versions of FrameMaker are, or are
not, available for a particular OS and platform is
On 1 Mar 2007, at 19:22, Dov Isaacs wrote:
Hang on. Don't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both support Type 1 fonts?
Hang on. Weren't NeXTSTEP app developers some of the first to port
their apps to Mac OS X?
How difficult could it be?
Paul
It is quite difficult because the similarities
you describe
On 1 Mar 2007, at 14:00, Mike Wickham wrote:
When someone stabs you in the back after you've been a very loyal
customer for nearly 20 years, you don't normally go running back
for
more.
So what action are you going to take against Apple for dropping
Classic
support from their Mactel
On 1 Mar 2007, at 17:12, Paul Findon wrote:
In the early '90s, I made many a manual with Adobe FrameMaker 3.0
for NeXTSTEP.
Whoops! In all the excitement I should have said Frame Technology
FrameMaker 3.0 for NeXTSTEP.
I wonder what ever happened to that code?
Paul
,
which was never a real OS).
--Sean Pollock
UGS Corp.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Paul Findon
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 4:41 PM
To: Mike Wickham
Cc: Frame Users; Free Framers List
Subject: Re: Frame's future
On 1 Mar 2007, at 14
Its as valid as any officer of a company doing something for worse
reasons. His justification may not be exemplary, however it is not
malfeasance. Since it is somewhere around the middle ground I see no
reason to take him to task for it.
Scott
At 5:38 AM -0800 3/1/07, John Posada wrote:
Considering that Microsoft couldn't seem to port Internet Explorer to
OS X, it must be insurmountable.
Scott
At 5:12 PM + 3/1/07, Paul Findon wrote:
Steve Rickaby wrote:
Although MacOS X has UNIX underpinnings, the difficult
stuff relating to user interfaces, font access, output,
etc.
on Solaris licenses vs. Mac.
Scott
At 11:22 AM -0800 3/1/07, Dov Isaacs wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Paul Findon
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:13 AM
To: Frame Users; Free Framers List; Steve Rickaby
Subject: Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX
Steve Rickaby wrote:
Although MacOS X
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Sean Pollock
Sent: Thu 3/1/2007 9:17 PM
To: 'Paul Findon'; 'Mike Wickham'
Cc: 'Frame Users'; 'Free Framers List'
Subject: RE: Frame's future
Mike,
At least you have a real OS. Most of us in the business world use PCs
because they're the corporate norm
On 27 Feb 2007, at 22:55, Paul Pehrson wrote:
Jumping in a bit late here,
But why are Mac users jumping on the MadCap hope bandwagon? MadCap
products also only work on Windows. The problem will be the same
whether your tool of choice is Blaze or Frame.
It's quite simple really. One of
a real PC, since most of us have lost the appetite for Adobe
software, we'd rather use something else, and MadCap's Blaze looks
promising.
Let's see if I got this right.
Adobe used to suppot MAC but does no longer, so we're pissed.
Therefore, we'll go to a company who has never
in processor instruction sets (Sun's processors
versus Gx or Mactel).
- Dov
-Original Message-
From: Chris Borokowski
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 7:39 AM
To: Free Framers List; framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX
It is possible I'm
Paul,
I think you're breaking the rules of the conversation by applying logic...
It's not about logic, it's about being a Mac fan.
Cheers,
Art
On 2/27/07, Paul Pehrson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jumping in a bit late here,
But why are Mac users jumping on the MadCap hope bandwagon? MadCap
Art Campbell wrote:
Paul,
I think you're breaking the rules of the conversation by applying
logic...
It's not about logic, it's about being a Mac fan.
So, Art, you don't think that Mac fanatacism trumps compulsive speculation?
Regards,
Peter Gold
KnowHow ProServices
AM
To: Free Framers List;
framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX
It is possible I'm wholly clueless here. Although
rare, it does occur.
Mac OSX is a Mach/BSD hybrid. Wouldn't that enable
you
to use the UNIX version of FrameMaker?
If not, have you
I can't speak for the whole, but I can for this Mac fan and his Doc
Group. We are currently on Macs despite creating PC software (long
story, short is we used to be Mac and transitioned our code/product).
We've kept Docs on the Mac due to legacy docs and ease of use and
there was no real
At 6:53 AM -0800 2/28/07, John Posada wrote:
a real PC, since most of us have lost the appetite for Adobe
software, we'd rather use something else, and MadCap's Blaze looks
promising.
Let's see if I got this right.
Adobe used to suppot MAC but does no longer, so we're pissed.
Therefore,
Jumping in a bit late here,
But why are Mac users jumping on the MadCap hope bandwagon? MadCap products
also only work on Windows. The problem will be the same whether your tool of
choice is Blaze or Frame.
Or did I miss something?
-Paul Pehrson
Midvale, UT
On 2/25/07, Paul Findon [EMAIL
At 10:54 -0800 24/2/07, Guy K. Haas wrote:
I see nothing that spells out FrameMaker does not work at all Has anyone
TRIED it and reported this?
I was quoting from page 5 of the document 'How Adobe Products Support Windows
Vista':
Q. Does Adobe FrameMaker 7.2 run on Windows Vista? Does
From: Steve Rickaby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Guy K. Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Re: Frame's future
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:39:17 +
At 10:54 -0800 24/2/07, Guy K. Haas wrote:
I see nothing that spells out FrameMaker does not work at all Has
anyone
At 11:00 -0500 25/2/07, Fred Ridder wrote:
What you stated was your interpretation, not a direct quote.
True. But stated immediately above a direct quote, namely:
'Adobe FrameMaker 7.2 and earlier do not support Windows Vista. However, Adobe
currently plans to release the next major version of
On 24 Feb 2007, at 00:33, Michael Heine wrote:
Blaze sounds interesting (on vapour paper, so far). So, will it do
endnotes, and print 4/C ... ?
I don't know. Ask them. They seem to be a helpful company.
General: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sales: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Perhaps we can work out a deal for
On 21 Feb 2007, at 19:30, Dov Isaacs wrote:
What is true is that Adobe was certainly NOT going to
drop support for Windows in favour of a MacOS X-only
solution or start developing products exclusively for
MacOS X, a strategy that apparently at least some within
Apple would have liked Adobe to
On 21 Feb 2007, at 16:28, Dov Isaacs wrote:
Comparing the Macintosh version of FrameMaker to a Ford
Taurus is not a valid analogy. FrameMaker on Macintosh was
NEVER a best-seller. It was a very small fraction of the
FrameMaker user base, smaller than even Unix, that did not
justify the
On 21 Feb 2007, at 16:28, Dov Isaacs wrote:
Comparing the Macintosh version of FrameMaker to a Ford
Taurus is not a valid analogy. FrameMaker on Macintosh was
NEVER a best-seller. It was a very small fraction of the
FrameMaker user base, smaller than even Unix, that did not
justify the
Brissette; Free Framers List; framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Re: Frame's future
On 21 Feb 2007, at 19:30, Dov Isaacs wrote:
What is true is that Adobe was certainly NOT going to
drop support for Windows in favour of a MacOS X-only
solution or start developing products exclusively
-Original Message-
From: Paul Findon
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 1:26 PM
To: Free Framers List; framers@lists.frameusers.com
Cc: Chuck Hastings
Subject: Re: Frame's future
On 21 Feb 2007, at 17:28, Dov Isaacs wrote:
There is no reason for me to doubt the veracity
-Original Message-
From: Paul Findon
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 1:30 PM
To: Free Framers List; framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Re: Frame's future
On 21 Feb 2007, at 16:28, Dov Isaacs wrote:
Comparing the Macintosh version of FrameMaker to a Ford
Taurus
At 9:29 PM + 2/25/07, Paul Findon wrote:
Adobe could have pushed FrameMaker as a 1st class word processor and cut the
price. Throw in a spreadsheet, a cut-down version of Illustrator, and a
Powerpoint alternative and you have a whole new office platform. With
Microsoft encroaching more and
Brissette; Free Framers List; framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Re: Frame's future
On 21 Feb 2007, at 19:30, Dov Isaacs wrote:
What is true is that Adobe was certainly NOT going to
drop support for Windows in favour of a MacOS X-only
solution or start developing products exclusively
List; framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Re: Frame's future
On 21 Feb 2007, at 19:30, Dov Isaacs wrote:
What is true is that Adobe was certainly NOT going to
drop support for Windows in favour of a MacOS X-only
solution or start developing products exclusively for
MacOS X, a strategy
At 9:32 PM + 2/25/07, Paul Findon wrote:
There is no law or SEC regulation that stipulates a minimum profitability for
products, and Adobe could have simply raised the price if it really was such a
major draw on expenses.
And the really pathetic irony here is that Frame Technologies first
At 20:27 -0800 23/2/07, Guy K. Haas wrote:
What does it mean FrameMaker whatever supports Vista? Does it just mean
FrameMaker whatever is able to take advantage of the marvelous new features
of Vista?
On the basis of a quick scan, it looks as if it just means 'running without
issues' - i.e.
The document was about Adobe products and whether they support Vista.
Q. Does Adobe FrameMaker 7.2 run on Windows Vista? Does Adobe plan to update it
for Windows Vista support?
A. Adobe FrameMaker 7.2 and earlier do not support Windows Vista. However, Adobe
currently plans to release the next
Guy K. Haas wrote:
The document was about Adobe products and whether they support Vista.
[snip]
I see nothing that spells out FrameMaker does not work at all Has
anyone TRIED it and reported this?
Been running FM 7.2 on Vista for a few weeks now. None of my Type 1
fonts work (which I
To: Guy K. Haas
Cc: framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Re: Frame's future
Guy K. Haas wrote:
The document was about Adobe products and whether they
support Vista.
[snip]
I see nothing that spells out FrameMaker does not work at all
Has anyone TRIED it and reported
Marcus Carr [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 02/22/2007 10:46:17 PM:
For our mechanically gifted friend, I'd be
inclined to provide a graphic interface and a touch screen that let him
drill to the warp drive than compel him to hunt and peck on a toughened
keyboard. An index may have its place, but it's
On 22 Feb 2007, at 11:59, Wayne Brissette wrote:
The biggest challenge for Adobe is stopping the defections. The one
number one topic among FrameMaker users at STC meetings I attend are
what other options are out there for them. These aren't just the
Sun or
According to Adobe's latest SEC
Hi Paul,
I am also anxious to see what this ends up looking like. Hopefully, it won't
end up being vaporware.
Rick Quatro
Carmen Publishing
585-659-8267
www.frameexpert.com
Personally, I'm looking forward to the new Madcap Blaze, which Madcap
describe as the ultimate alternative to Adobe
Paul Findon wrote:
Personally, I'm looking forward to the new Madcap Blaze, which Madcap
describe as the ultimate alternative to Adobe FrameMaker.
http://www.madcapsoftware.com/
Me too, Paul, but has ANYBODY got any info on how their beta is doing,
or whether it is even underway?
I know
Guy K. Haas wrote:
I know [MadCap] have been on the road at STC (and other) group meetings
talking up Flare and its kin, but have they said much about Blaze?
Hi Guy et al.,
My understanding is that XML support in Blaze will be comparable to XML
support in Flare. The file storage format will be
Blaze sounds interesting (on vapour paper, so far). So, will it do
endnotes, and print 4/C ... ?
I'd also be curious to see if the coming version of FrameMaker will run
under XP? It's specifically designed for Vista, it seems: ... Adobe
currently plans to release the next major verions of
What does it mean FrameMaker whatever supports Vista? Does it just
mean FrameMaker whatever is able to take advantage of the marvelous
new features of Vista?
--Guy K. Haas
Software Exegete in Silicon Valley
Michael Heine wrote:
Blaze sounds interesting (on vapour paper, so far). So, will
Hedley Finger wrote:
> The original discussion was, generally, about what Adobe needed to do
> to find out what functionality their customers would need in the
> future.
>
> I attempted to make the point that a study of the third-party plugins
> would indicate to Adobe the gaps in FrameMaker's
Marcus, Marcus, Marcus:
> > I attempted to make the point that a study of the third-party plugins
> > would indicate to Adobe the gaps in FrameMaker's functionality that
> > they need to address, and chose indexing plugins as an example where
> > there are many independent plugins to improve this
hedley.finger at myob.com wrote:
> Marcus, Marcus, Marcus:
Hedley, Hedley, Hedley... :-)
> I'm surprised that you of all people should associate functionality
> with presentation. It's a bit similar to separating format from
> content. 8^) And I'm surprised that you equate indexes only with
Marcus^3:
The example of the Turbo Tarburner was chosen with care. Even as we
bicker, a major automotive manufacturer is implementing an on-demand
customised workshop manual.
The mechanic will simply enter the car's body number or VIN or whatever,
and a custom manual for just the equipment
H4y^3,
hedley.finger at myob.com wrote:
> The example of the Turbo Tarburner was chosen with care. Even as we
> bicker, a major automotive manufacturer is implementing an on-demand
> customised workshop manual.
>
> The mechanic will simply enter the car's body number or VIN or
> whatever, and
Art,
Thank you for posting the link; I enjoyed the Blog. It is comforting to
see Aseem Dokania's statement online that FrameMaker is here to stay.
I know that the original posting was about Frame's future, but I
wanted to make these comments about Frame's past, which has so much to
do with why
Hedley Finger wrote:
The original discussion was, generally, about what Adobe needed to do
to find out what functionality their customers would need in the
future.
I attempted to make the point that a study of the third-party plugins
would indicate to Adobe the gaps in FrameMaker's
Marcus, Marcus, Marcus:
I attempted to make the point that a study of the third-party plugins
would indicate to Adobe the gaps in FrameMaker's functionality that
they need to address, and chose indexing plugins as an example where
there are many independent plugins to improve this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marcus, Marcus, Marcus:
Hedley, Hedley, Hedley... :-)
I'm surprised that you of all people should associate functionality
with presentation. It's a bit similar to separating format from
content. 8^) And I'm surprised that you equate indexes only with
hardcopy.
Marcus^3:
The example of the Turbo Tarburner was chosen with care. Even as we
bicker, a major automotive manufacturer is implementing an on-demand
customised workshop manual.
The mechanic will simply enter the car's body number or VIN or whatever,
and a custom manual for just the equipment
H4y^3,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The example of the Turbo Tarburner was chosen with care. Even as we
bicker, a major automotive manufacturer is implementing an on-demand
customised workshop manual.
The mechanic will simply enter the car's body number or VIN or
whatever, and a custom manual
Since my post about plugins diverted this thread from its original topic
onto a discussion of the merits of plugins, may I amplify my remarks?
The original discussion was, generally, about what Adobe needed to do to
find out what functionality their customers would need in the future.
I
: RE: Frame's future
Licensing and integrating existing plug-ins is an excellent way to extend
functionality of a core product. In response to Hedley's suggestion, I
mentioned the DITA and Apply Master Pages plug-ins as examples for plug-ins
that are already incorporated into FrameMaker
I'd expect that Adobe would not do it without some sort of financial
payment to framescript's developer.
--- Rick Quatro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FrameScript's developer will not do this because it removes an
incentive for
people to purchase FrameScript. Hundreds of scripts would be
, and then once you are aware they exist, finding them can be quite
tricky (that list of Index plugins includes some I've never even heard
of...).
Gordon
-Original Message-
Subject: RE: Frame's future
Licensing and integrating existing plug-ins is an excellent way to extend
functionality
Since my post about plugins diverted this thread from its original topic
onto a discussion of the merits of plugins, may I amplify my remarks?
The original discussion was, generally, about what Adobe needed to do to
find out what functionality their customers would need in the future.
I
Another thing Adobe could do is look at all the plug-ins and mods that
various people have come up with to scratch an itch -- or stem a raging
haemorrhage. For example, there are a whole bunch of indexing tools --
IXgen, emDex, Index Tools Pro, IndexRef, etc. -- suggesting that there is
a
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 2:18 PM
To: framers@lists.frameusers.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Shlomo Perets
Subject: Re: Frame's future
Another thing Adobe could do is look at all the plug-ins and mods that
various people have come
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another thing Adobe could do is look at all the plug-ins and mods that
various people have come up with to scratch an itch -- or stem a raging
haemorrhage. For example, there are a whole bunch of indexing tools --
IXgen, emDex, Index Tools Pro, IndexRef, etc. --
At 6:29 PM -0500 2/20/07, Keith Soltys wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another thing Adobe could do is look at all the plug-ins and mods that
various people have come up with to scratch an itch -- or stem a raging
haemorrhage. For example, there are a whole bunch of indexing tools --
IXgen,
FrameScript's developer will not do this because it removes an incentive for
people to purchase FrameScript. Hundreds of scripts would be distributed
with no renumeration for FrameScript's developer. FrameScript is a bargain
at $149. Even the simplest scripts provide a quick payback in time
Hi, Rick.
Rick Quatro wrote:
FrameScript's developer will not do this because it removes an incentive
for people to purchase FrameScript. Hundreds of scripts would be
distributed with no renumeration for FrameScript's developer.
Unless Adobe paid some them small royalty portion of the sales
Hedley Finger wrote:
Another thing Adobe could do is look at all the plug-ins and mods that
various people have come up with to scratch an itch -- or stem a raging
haemorrhage. For example, there are a whole bunch of indexing tools --
IXgen, emDex, Index Tools Pro, IndexRef, etc. --
Hi Shlomo,
Please update to a current version of the FrameMaker Application Pack
for DITA.
FrameMaker 7.2 DITA support is Based on a core plugin developed and
maintained by Leximation (quoted from the DITA About window).
Is this a problem? Adobe picked a great starting point for the app
You wrote:
Please update to a current version of the FrameMaker Application Pack
for DITA.
FrameMaker 7.2 DITA support is Based on a core plugin developed and
maintained by Leximation (quoted from the DITA About window).
Is this a problem? Adobe picked a great starting point for the app
Art Campbell wrote:
A little rich, but interesting reading:
http://blogs.adobe.com/techcomm/2007/02/framemaker_is_and_will_remain.html
Twelve years after the first release of Adobe-branded FrameMaker (5.0), and
six years after Adobe's FrameMaker is alive and well statement, I would
like
At 12:40 -0800 16/2/07, John Posada wrote:
Put it back on the @[EMAIL PROTECTED] Macintosh.
From my perspective, it would be a dilution of a fixed amount of
resources taken away from the platform I care about for only a small
increase in market share.
I doubt it, John. In the [admittedly
At 15:07 -0500 16/2/07, Art Campbell wrote:
A little rich, but interesting reading:
http://blogs.adobe.com/techcomm/2007/02/framemaker_is_and_will_remain.html
Total market-speak and almost entirely content-free. Guff.
'The most important question is; how can we make sure that FrameMaker
'The most important question is; how can we make sure that
FrameMaker continues to be the tool of choice for you?'
Put it back on the @[EMAIL PROTECTED] Macintosh.
From my perspective, it would be a dilution of a fixed amount of
resources taken away from the platform I care about for only a
At 12:40 PM -0800 2/16/07, John Posada wrote:
Subject: Re: Frame's future
'The most important question is; how can we make sure that
FrameMaker continues to be the tool of choice for you?'
Put it back on the @[EMAIL PROTECTED] Macintosh.
From my perspective, it would be a dilution of a fixed
97 matches
Mail list logo
