Diane Gaskill wrote:
> Now I have another question, almost as complicated. Structured FM can
> work with both OASIS XML standards: DocBook and DITA. But which one is
> the better standard to use? Or does it make any difference? One of our
> divisions in Japan has decided on AT with Docbook
Rick Spiegel wrote:
> My company is considering switching to Structured Frame to solve our
> current problems with content reuse, and I have a question, the answer to
> which, to me, holds the key as to whether or not Structured Frame is the
> answer we're looking for.
With all due respect, I
Fred said:
> But the point remains that the best way to prepare depends greatly on
> what your goals and objectives are.
... and went on to make several other excellent points.
John said:
> I think the single biggest obstacle to my adoption of Structured
> FrameMaker has been exactly this sort
John wrote:
> But all I get are:
>
> * Offerings from vendors claiming to be THE answer for all my needs
even when they don't know what my needs may be.
Yes, that fits the profile of a vendor all right.
> * Endless extensive discussions from knowledgeable folk who tell me
> all the grand
Jeremy H. Griffith wrote:
> The Frame docs are all UNstructured, and I can't imagine what benefit
> structure would bring to something as free-form as a Web site... ;-)
Huh?? It's Sunday morning and I've not yet caffeinated, but that seems
like a rather sweeping statement. Obviously any big
Lin Surasky wrote:
> So I'm thinking that structured FM must be able to help, in that I could
> somehow create element tags for Fixes and Issues, and then just change
> the element tag for the Issues that have been fixed and somehow
> regenerate the documents (how, I don't know -- do I need to
Ann Zdunczyk wrote:
> It is interesting that I have been hearing about paperless offices
> for years but have yet to see one. Its like the people that say books
> are going away and being replaced by electronic media. I, as a reader,
> plan to continue reading PAPER books. I do not plan to read
Alan wrote:
>> Adobe will have a formidable job of keeping FrameMaker relevant,
>> but like you, I hope they manage to.
>
> But why? FM is only a tool for the creation of content. CS3 is also
> a content creation tool, but does things with various content data
> types.
I don't really see
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
>
Fred Ridder wrote:
> 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
Jakob Fix wrote:
> I am doing some testing for export of a Frame (7.1) document to XML and
> SGML. I am particularly interested in the maximum length of attribute
> values. I found that there's not really a limit when exporting to XML
> (I tried 5kb of text). However, when exporting to SGML,
> The fun (and funny) thing about all this is that every generation says the
> same thing about how easy their kids have it. And it'll probably be true
> 100 years from now.
And therein lies the conundrum that makes the ever-diminishing degree of
difficulty unsupportable. Technological advances
Bernard wrote:
> I generally have to agree with what is written below, but I have to take a
> minor exception on (a) regarding 'the line that you can do it with DITA or
> DocBook'. Out of the box does a good job, but unfortunately the 'good job'
> is at scaring people away.
I consider DITA to be
Mike Feimster wrote:
> The "Real Life" Migration to Stuctured Doc thread got me thinking. What is
> better? A custom schema or one the "standards" such as Docbook or DITA.
DITA was designed by IBM for data interchange, so was never really
intended as a data authoring structure. This can be
Alan Houser wrote:
> Organizations are "successful" when they meet their business
> requirements as efficiently (time and $$$) as possible. I talk lots of
> people _out_ of migrating to XML for this reason. I even occasionally
> say "you're doing just fine with MS Word."
Perhaps our roles are
Hi all,
I know that what I'm about to ask is less than ideal on so many levels,
but please don't offer me a lecture as I have no control over the
circumstances.
A past client has been asked to put together of list of questions that a
non-technical panel could use to evaluate applicants for a
Eric Dunn wrote:
> Now what exactly is the difference between "hunt and peck" and "drill".
Drilling through a graphical user interface would involve pointing at hot
spots to get to the subsystem of interest, then working from a list of
commonly required process - Servicing, Repair Procedures,
17 matches
Mail list logo
