re: Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring
Hi Verner We are migrating to XMetal DITA from RoboHelp and Frame/webworks. We like that XMetal is in one package and we don't have to worry about maintaining multiple applications to output our deliverables (chm, single html, and pdf). Granted the PDF output has been difficult to achieve, but we have a Tools person who has been able to customize output to meet our needs. Translation was another driver in adopting XMetal. We localize into many languages and the ease of working with pure XML files makes life much easier for Translators, who could not process .fm files directly. As the others have written, analyze and base your choice on your needs. Mind that converting legacy to XML DITA, no matter what your tool, will have a huge impact on translation memory. If you do translation, make sure to involve that team for input. Good luck. Joe Campo DS SolidWorks Concord, MA USA Today's Topics: 1. Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring (Andersen, Verner Engell VEA) 2. Re: Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring (Yves Barbion) 3. Re: Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring (Writer) -- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:04:20 +0200 From: Andersen, Verner Engell VEA verner.ander...@radiometer.dk Subject: Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring To: framers@lists.frameusers.com, FrameMaker discussion list (omsys) (FrameMaker discussion list (omsys)) fram...@omsys.com Message-ID: fd738d92925fdd4183417fcae6660d7605015...@dhreinsvxb03.messaging.danaher ad.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi I currently use unstructured Framemaker for pdf output. I single-source my content - and via Webworks Publisher I output to context-sensitive help in Webworks help format. My 5 colleagues use Word and output to pdf for printing. We plan to go structured and are considering whether we should use Framemaker or XMetal. Do any of you know where I can find an unbiased comparison of the two tools? I have been told that the major disadvantage of using Framemaker is that you are required to save in binary format to keep the Framemaker-specific XML processing instructions (pls). If you store in xml-format you cannot retrieve and maintain conditional text. Callouts on drawings (the graphics tool in Framemaker) will be rasterized, and even paragraph styles can be discarded if you save a document as XML. What are the implications of sacrificing saving documents as XML? Another advantage in favor of XMetal should be that it has vendor-supported integration with most content management systems (CMS). Apparently XMetal seems to be the best choice. What are your comments? Thanks, Verner ___ 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.
Re: Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring
I agree that for efficient, cost-effective localization, you need to be in XML. We just helped a customer reduce the cost of translation for one document from $20K to $6K. And this is the number for just one book and one product. (As a side note, this particular customer went to Arbortext from Frame.) Interesting that you had trouble getting XMetal to produce PDF. I know Arbortext doesn't. Liz On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Joe Campojoe.ca...@solidworks.com wrote: Hi Verner We are migrating to XMetal DITA from RoboHelp and Frame/webworks. We like that XMetal is in one package and we don't have to worry about maintaining multiple applications to output our deliverables (chm, single html, and pdf). Granted the PDF output has been difficult to achieve, but we have a Tools person who has been able to customize output to meet our needs. Translation was another driver in adopting XMetal. We localize into many languages and the ease of working with pure XML files makes life much easier for Translators, who could not process .fm files directly. As the others have written, analyze and base your choice on your needs. Mind that converting legacy to XML DITA, no matter what your tool, will have a huge impact on translation memory. If you do translation, make sure to involve that team for input. Good luck. Joe Campo DS SolidWorks Concord, MA USA Today's Topics: 1. Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring (Andersen, Verner Engell VEA) 2. Re: Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring (Yves Barbion) 3. Re: Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring (Writer) -- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:04:20 +0200 From: Andersen, Verner Engell VEA verner.ander...@radiometer.dk Subject: Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring To: framers@lists.frameusers.com, FrameMaker discussion list (omsys) (FrameMaker discussion list (omsys)) fram...@omsys.com Message-ID: fd738d92925fdd4183417fcae6660d7605015...@dhreinsvxb03.messaging.danaher ad.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi I currently use unstructured Framemaker for pdf output. I single-source my content - and via Webworks Publisher I output to context-sensitive help in Webworks help format. My 5 colleagues use Word and output to pdf for printing. We plan to go structured and are considering whether we should use Framemaker or XMetal. Do any of you know where I can find an unbiased comparison of the two tools? I have been told that the major disadvantage of using Framemaker is that you are required to save in binary format to keep the Framemaker-specific XML processing instructions (pls). If you store in xml-format you cannot retrieve and maintain conditional text. Callouts on drawings (the graphics tool in Framemaker) will be rasterized, and even paragraph styles can be discarded if you save a document as XML. What are the implications of sacrificing saving documents as XML? Another advantage in favor of XMetal should be that it has vendor-supported integration with most content management systems (CMS). Apparently XMetal seems to be the best choice. What are your comments? Thanks, Verner ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as calto...@gmail.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/caltonia%40gmail.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. ___ 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.
Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring
Hi Verner We are migrating to XMetal DITA from RoboHelp and Frame/webworks. We like that XMetal is in one package and we don't have to worry about maintaining multiple applications to output our deliverables (chm, single html, and pdf). Granted the PDF output has been difficult to achieve, but we have a Tools person who has been able to customize output to meet our needs. Translation was another driver in adopting XMetal. We localize into many languages and the ease of working with pure XML files makes life much easier for Translators, who could not process .fm files directly. As the others have written, analyze and base your choice on your needs. Mind that converting legacy to XML DITA, no matter what your tool, will have a huge impact on translation memory. If you do translation, make sure to involve that team for input. Good luck. Joe Campo DS SolidWorks Concord, MA USA Today's Topics: 1. Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring (Andersen, Verner Engell VEA) 2. Re: Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring (Yves Barbion) 3. Re: Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring (Writer) -- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:04:20 +0200 From: "Andersen, Verner Engell VEA" <verner.ander...@radiometer.dk> Subject: Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring To: , "FrameMaker discussion list (omsys) (FrameMaker discussion list (omsys))" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi I currently use unstructured Framemaker for pdf output. I single-source my content - and via Webworks Publisher I output to context-sensitive help in Webworks help format. My 5 colleagues use Word and output to pdf for printing. We plan to go structured and are considering whether we should use Framemaker or XMetal. Do any of you know where I can find an unbiased comparison of the two tools? I have been told that the major disadvantage of using Framemaker is that you are required to save in binary format to keep the Framemaker-specific XML processing instructions (pls). If you store in xml-format you cannot retrieve and maintain conditional text. Callouts on drawings (the graphics tool in Framemaker) will be rasterized, and even paragraph styles can be discarded if you save a document as XML. What are the implications of sacrificing saving documents as XML? Another advantage in favor of XMetal should be that it has vendor-supported integration with most content management systems (CMS). Apparently XMetal seems to be the best choice. What are your comments? Thanks, Verner
Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring
I agree that for efficient, cost-effective localization, you need to be in XML. We just helped a customer reduce the cost of translation for one document from $20K to $6K. And this is the number for just one book and one product. (As a side note, this particular customer went to Arbortext from Frame.) Interesting that you had trouble getting XMetal to produce PDF. I know Arbortext doesn't. Liz On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Joe Campo wrote: > Hi Verner > We are migrating to XMetal DITA from RoboHelp and Frame/webworks. We > like that XMetal is in one package and we don't have to worry about > maintaining multiple applications to output our deliverables (chm, > single html, and pdf). Granted the PDF output has been difficult to > achieve, but we have a Tools person who has been able to customize > output to meet our needs. > > Translation was another driver in adopting XMetal. We localize into many > languages and the ease of working with pure XML files makes life much > easier for Translators, who could not process .fm files directly. > > As the others have written, analyze and base your choice on your needs. > Mind that converting legacy to XML DITA, no matter what your tool, will > have a huge impact on translation memory. If you do translation, make > sure to involve that team for input. > > Good luck. > Joe Campo > DS SolidWorks > Concord, MA USA > > Today's Topics: > > ? 1. Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring > ? ? ?(Andersen, Verner Engell VEA) > ? 2. Re: Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring (Yves Barbion) > ? 3. Re: Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring (Writer) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:04:20 +0200 > From: "Andersen, Verner Engell VEA" > Subject: Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring > To: , ? ? "FrameMaker discussion list > ? ? ? ?(omsys) (FrameMaker discussion list ? ? (omsys))" > > Message-ID: > > ad.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; ? ? ? charset="us-ascii" > > Hi > I currently use unstructured Framemaker for pdf output. I single-source > my content - and via Webworks Publisher I output to context-sensitive > help in Webworks help format. > > My 5 colleagues use Word and output to pdf for printing. We plan to go > structured and are considering whether we should use Framemaker or > XMetal. > > Do any of you know where I can find an unbiased comparison of the two > tools? > > I have been told that the major disadvantage of using Framemaker is that > you are required to save in binary format to keep the > Framemaker-specific XML processing instructions (pls). If you store in > xml-format you cannot retrieve and maintain conditional text. Callouts > on drawings (the graphics tool in Framemaker) will be rasterized, and > even paragraph styles can be discarded if you save a document as XML. > > What are the implications of sacrificing saving documents as XML? > > Another advantage in favor of XMetal should be that it has > vendor-supported integration with most content management systems (CMS). > Apparently XMetal seems to be the best choice. > > What are your comments? > > Thanks, > > Verner > > ___ > > > You are currently subscribed to Framers as caltonia at gmail.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/caltonia%40gmail.com > > Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit > http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. >
Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring
Hi I currently use unstructured Framemaker for pdf output. I single-source my content - and via Webworks Publisher I output to context-sensitive help in Webworks help format. My 5 colleagues use Word and output to pdf for printing. We plan to go structured and are considering whether we should use Framemaker or XMetal. Do any of you know where I can find an unbiased comparison of the two tools? I have been told that the major disadvantage of using Framemaker is that you are required to save in binary format to keep the Framemaker-specific XML processing instructions (pls). If you store in xml-format you cannot retrieve and maintain conditional text. Callouts on drawings (the graphics tool in Framemaker) will be rasterized, and even paragraph styles can be discarded if you save a document as XML. What are the implications of sacrificing saving documents as XML? Another advantage in favor of XMetal should be that it has vendor-supported integration with most content management systems (CMS). Apparently XMetal seems to be the best choice. What are your comments? Thanks, Verner Radiometer Medical ApS Akandevej 21 2700 Bronshoj Denmark Phone: +45 38 27 38 27 CVR: 27 50 91 85 www.radiometer.com For the latest trends in acute care testing, go to Radiometer's knowledge site www.acutecaretesting.org Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or re-transmit this email. If you have received this email in error, please notify us by email by replying to the sender and by telephone (call us collect at +1 202-828-0850) and delete this message and any attachments. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance. In addition, Danaher and its subsidiaries disclaim that the content of this email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any contract or agreement or any amendment thereto; provided that the foregoing disclaimer does not invalidate the binding effect of any digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included in any attachment to this email. ___ 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.
Re: Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring
Hi Verner Michael has already given you some excellent answers (as always). You find my comments below On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Andersen, Verner Engell VEA verner.ander...@radiometer.dk wrote: Hi I currently use unstructured Framemaker for pdf output. I single-source my content - and via Webworks Publisher I output to context-sensitive help in Webworks help format. My 5 colleagues use Word and output to pdf for printing. We plan to go structured and are considering whether we should use Framemaker or XMetal. Do any of you know where I can find an unbiased comparison of the two tools? If you google FrameMaker +XMetaL + comparison, you will find a couple of good comparisons done by Scriptorium, for example: http://www.slideshare.net/Scriptorium/dita-support-in-framemaker-and-xmetal-presentation However, if you want to go structured, I can also advise you to go DITA. And if you go DITA, I would also include DITA-FMx in the comparison. DITA-FMx is a FrameMaker plugin developed by Leximation and in my experience the only viable option to author DITA-structured content in FrameMaker 7.2, 8 or 9. You can find a comparison between FM8 DITA and DITA-Fmx 1.0 here: http://leximation.com/dita-fmx/featurecomparison.html Leximation is currently also working on beta versions of DITA-FMx 1.1 with an impressive list of new features: http://leximation.com/dita-fmx/beta.php I have been told that the major disadvantage of using Framemaker is that you are required to save in binary format to keep the Framemaker-specific XML processing instructions (pls). Like Michael said, this is simply not true. The DITA topics we author in FrameMaker are valid XML files, not structured binary .fm files. We use multiple DITA-aware XML editors, including DITA-FMx, XMetaL, oXygen and Syntext Serna and the files remain valid as they are edited in each of these programs. This allows us to use the best features of each program, for example work on graphics and tables in FM+DITA-FMx, but use the ditamap editor or plain text view of XMetaL. If you store in xml-format you cannot retrieve and maintain conditional text. Like Michael said, you would use attributes to conditionalize text segments. And with DITA-FMx, you can apply ditaval as conditions, which is very handy if you generate a FM book from your ditamap and then save your FM book as a PDF. Callouts on drawings (the graphics tool in Framemaker) will be rasterized Indeed, callouts need to be done differently in XML. But again, DITA-FMx can help here because beta 2 of DITA-FMx 1.1 supports graphic overlay objects: You can now add callouts and other graphic overlay objects to images in FrameMaker and have them round-trip to DITA and back (source: http://leximation.com/dita-fmx/beta.php). , and even paragraph styles can be discarded if you save a document as XML. As Michael said, no room for paragraph (or character) styles in XML, i.e. at least not in your authoring templates. When you're authoring XML content, it doesn't matter what font is being used, or how the indent and spacing of your paragraphs look like. In other words, you move from WYSIWYG authoring to WYSIOO (What You See is One Option), which takes a bit of getting used to for many authors. See also: http://www.scriptorium.com/palimpsest/2008/11/wysiwar.html You do use paragraph and character styles, however, in your publishing templates (or stylesheets). There, you specify that a title element in a section gets the paragraph tag title1, for example, and you specify all the properties of that paragraph tag (using the good old Paragraph Designer in FM). What are the implications of sacrificing saving documents as XML? Like Michael said, you need to have good reasons to go structured. You may have an authoring process in place where some people author content in FrameMaker and others (SMEs) in Word and you publish this content as PDF and WebWorks Help. This may work great (WebWorks ePublisher accepts Word, FM and even ditamaps and topics as input format). If so, don't change. We still have a lot of customers who are happily single-sourcing with this setup. I have been using unstructured FM for more than 15 years (gosh, I'm feeling very old now!) and I still enjoy authoring the odd unstructured FM doc every now and then. The added value of XML and DITA to me has been: * More and better reuse options using DITA conrefs * More publishing options using the DITA Open Toolkit, WebWorks ePublisher and some other great new publishing tools * Easier ways to deliver content to our customers. No more FrameMaker vs. Word discussions (yay!) * New, exciting ways to do collaborative content development Another advantage in favor of XMetal should be that it has vendor-supported integration with most content management systems (CMS). See also: http://leximation.com/dita-fmx/webinar.php Apparently XMetal seems to be the best choice. XMetaL is definitely a good
Re: Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring
I haven't used XMetal, but we do use FM9 to author DITA XML, and ePublisher (XML adapter) to create online help. We author XML files and ditamaps in FM9. To create PDFs, we save our ditamaps as composite FM books, which works fine. After the books are generated, we apply templates to the FM files to make them look the way we want. From there, we generate our PDF files. However, WebWorks (ePublisher) says that it plans to create a PDF output that you can format from within ePublisher. If this works the way that I expect, we can generate all of our outputs through ePublisher. If you choose FM, do get FM9. It handles DITA much better than FM8. You cannot use callouts in graphics, but I think this is true of any DITA XML. We use attribute values and ditaval files instead of conditional text to perform conditional filtering. DITA/FM has its own paragraph styles, but you can make them look however you want by editing the underlying templates and EDD files. CMS is not a consideration for us (yet), so I cannot answer to that. Nadine Andersen, Verner Engell VEA wrote: Hi I currently use unstructured Framemaker for pdf output. I single-source my content - and via Webworks Publisher I output to context-sensitive help in Webworks help format. My 5 colleagues use Word and output to pdf for printing. We plan to go structured and are considering whether we should use Framemaker or XMetal. Do any of you know where I can find an unbiased comparison of the two tools? I have been told that the major disadvantage of using Framemaker is that you are required to save in binary format to keep the Framemaker-specific XML processing instructions (pls). If you store in xml-format you cannot retrieve and maintain conditional text. Callouts on drawings (the graphics tool in Framemaker) will be rasterized, and even paragraph styles can be discarded if you save a document as XML. What are the implications of sacrificing saving documents as XML? Another advantage in favor of XMetal should be that it has vendor-supported integration with most content management systems (CMS). Apparently XMetal seems to be the best choice. What are your comments? Thanks, Verner Radiometer Medical ApS Akandevej 21 2700 Bronshoj Denmark Phone: +45 38 27 38 27 CVR: 27 50 91 85 www.radiometer.com For the latest trends in acute care testing, go to Radiometer's knowledge site www.acutecaretesting.org Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or re-transmit this email. If you have received this email in error, please notify us by email by replying to the sender and by telephone (call us collect at +1 202-828-0850) and delete this message and any attachments. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance. In addition, Danaher and its subsidiaries disclaim that the content of this email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any contract or agreement or any amendment thereto; provided that the foregoing disclaimer does not invalidate the binding effect of any digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included in any attachment to this email. ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as generic...@yahoo.ca. 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/generic668%40yahoo.ca Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. ___ 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.
Re: Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring
Just to repeat what Yves said .. if you're using DITA-FMx 1.1, you *can* actually use graphic overlay objects (callouts etc.) .. and this provides you the same level of DITA support in FM7.2, 8, and 9. If you're interested in seeing DITA-FMx and a CMS (XDocs) .. check out the webinar tomorrow .. http://leximation.com/dita-fmx/webinar.php Cheers, ...scott Scott Prentice Leximation, Inc. www.leximation.com +1.415.485.1892 Writer wrote: I haven't used XMetal, but we do use FM9 to author DITA XML, and ePublisher (XML adapter) to create online help. We author XML files and ditamaps in FM9. To create PDFs, we save our ditamaps as composite FM books, which works fine. After the books are generated, we apply templates to the FM files to make them look the way we want. From there, we generate our PDF files. However, WebWorks (ePublisher) says that it plans to create a PDF output that you can format from within ePublisher. If this works the way that I expect, we can generate all of our outputs through ePublisher. If you choose FM, do get FM9. It handles DITA much better than FM8. You cannot use callouts in graphics, but I think this is true of any DITA XML. We use attribute values and ditaval files instead of conditional text to perform conditional filtering. DITA/FM has its own paragraph styles, but you can make them look however you want by editing the underlying templates and EDD files. CMS is not a consideration for us (yet), so I cannot answer to that. Nadine Andersen, Verner Engell VEA wrote: Hi I currently use unstructured Framemaker for pdf output. I single-source my content - and via Webworks Publisher I output to context-sensitive help in Webworks help format. My 5 colleagues use Word and output to pdf for printing. We plan to go structured and are considering whether we should use Framemaker or XMetal. Do any of you know where I can find an unbiased comparison of the two tools? I have been told that the major disadvantage of using Framemaker is that you are required to save in binary format to keep the Framemaker-specific XML processing instructions (pls). If you store in xml-format you cannot retrieve and maintain conditional text. Callouts on drawings (the graphics tool in Framemaker) will be rasterized, and even paragraph styles can be discarded if you save a document as XML. What are the implications of sacrificing saving documents as XML? Another advantage in favor of XMetal should be that it has vendor-supported integration with most content management systems (CMS). Apparently XMetal seems to be the best choice. What are your comments? Thanks, Verner Radiometer Medical ApS Akandevej 21 2700 Bronshoj Denmark Phone: +45 38 27 38 27 CVR: 27 50 91 85 www.radiometer.com For the latest trends in acute care testing, go to Radiometer's knowledge site www.acutecaretesting.org Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or re-transmit this email. If you have received this email in error, please notify us by email by replying to the sender and by telephone (call us collect at +1 202-828-0850) and delete this message and any attachments. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance. In addition, Danaher and its subsidiaries disclaim that the content of this email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any contract or agreement or any amendment thereto; provided that the foregoing disclaimer does not invalidate the binding effect of any digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included in any attachment to this email. ___ 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.
Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring
Hi I currently use unstructured Framemaker for pdf output. I single-source my content - and via Webworks Publisher I output to context-sensitive help in Webworks help format. My 5 colleagues use Word and output to pdf for printing. We plan to go structured and are considering whether we should use Framemaker or XMetal. Do any of you know where I can find an unbiased comparison of the two tools? I have been told that the major disadvantage of using Framemaker is that you are required to save in binary format to keep the Framemaker-specific XML processing instructions (pls). If you store in xml-format you cannot retrieve and maintain conditional text. Callouts on drawings (the graphics tool in Framemaker) will be rasterized, and even paragraph styles can be discarded if you save a document as XML. What are the implications of sacrificing saving documents as XML? Another advantage in favor of XMetal should be that it has vendor-supported integration with most content management systems (CMS). Apparently XMetal seems to be the best choice. What are your comments? Thanks, Verner Radiometer Medical ApS Akandevej 21 2700 Bronshoj Denmark Phone: +45 38 27 38 27 CVR: 27 50 91 85 www.radiometer.com For the latest trends in acute care testing, go to Radiometer's knowledge site www.acutecaretesting.org Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or re-transmit this email. If you have received this email in error, please notify us by email by replying to the sender and by telephone (call us collect at +1 202-828-0850) and delete this message and any attachments. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance. In addition, Danaher and its subsidiaries disclaim that the content of this email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any contract or agreement or any amendment thereto; provided that the foregoing disclaimer does not invalidate the binding effect of any digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included in any attachment to this email.
Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring
Hi Verner Michael has already given you some excellent answers (as always). You find my comments below On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Andersen, Verner Engell VEA < verner.andersen at radiometer.dk> wrote: > Hi > I currently use unstructured Framemaker for pdf output. I single-source > my content - and via Webworks Publisher I output to context-sensitive > help in Webworks help format. > > My 5 colleagues use Word and output to pdf for printing. We plan to go > structured and are considering whether we should use Framemaker or > XMetal. > > Do any of you know where I can find an unbiased comparison of the two > tools? If you google "FrameMaker" +"XMetaL" + "comparison", you will find a couple of good comparisons done by Scriptorium, for example: http://www.slideshare.net/Scriptorium/dita-support-in-framemaker-and-xmetal-presentation However, if you want to "go structured", I can also advise you to "go DITA". And if you "go DITA", I would also include DITA-FMx in the comparison. DITA-FMx is a FrameMaker plugin developed by Leximation and in my experience the only viable option to author DITA-structured content in FrameMaker 7.2, 8 or 9. You can find a comparison between FM8 DITA and DITA-Fmx 1.0 here: http://leximation.com/dita-fmx/featurecomparison.html Leximation is currently also working on beta versions of DITA-FMx 1.1 with an impressive list of new features: http://leximation.com/dita-fmx/beta.php > > I have been told that the major disadvantage of using Framemaker is that > you are required to save in binary format to keep the > Framemaker-specific XML processing instructions (pls). > Like Michael said, this is simply not true. The DITA topics we author in FrameMaker are valid XML files, not structured binary .fm files. We use multiple DITA-aware XML editors, including DITA-FMx, XMetaL, oXygen and Syntext Serna and the files remain valid as they are edited in each of these programs. This allows us to use the best features of each program, for example work on graphics and tables in FM+DITA-FMx, but use the ditamap editor or plain text view of XMetaL. > If you store in > xml-format you cannot retrieve and maintain conditional text. > Like Michael said, you would use attributes to conditionalize text segments. And with DITA-FMx, you can apply ditaval as conditions, which is very handy if you generate a FM book from your ditamap and then save your FM book as a PDF. > Callouts > on drawings (the graphics tool in Framemaker) will be rasterized > Indeed, callouts need to be done differently in XML. But again, DITA-FMx can help here because beta 2 of DITA-FMx 1.1 "supports "graphic overlay objects: You can now add callouts and other graphic overlay objects to images in FrameMaker and have them round-trip to DITA and back" (source: http://leximation.com/dita-fmx/beta.php). > , and > even paragraph styles can be discarded if you save a document as XML. > As Michael said, "no room for paragraph (or character) styles in XML", i.e. at least not in your "authoring templates". When you're authoring XML content, it doesn't matter what font is being used, or how the indent and spacing of your paragraphs look like. In other words, you move from WYSIWYG authoring to WYSIOO (What You See is One Option), which takes a bit of "getting used to" for many authors. See also: http://www.scriptorium.com/palimpsest/2008/11/wysiwar.html You do use paragraph and character styles, however, in your "publishing templates" (or stylesheets). There, you specify that a element in a gets the paragraph tag "title1", for example, and you specify all the properties of that paragraph tag (using the good old Paragraph Designer in FM). > > What are the implications of sacrificing saving documents as XML? >> Like Michael said, you need to have good reasons to "go structured". You may have an authoring process in place where some people author content in FrameMaker and others (SMEs) in Word and you publish this content as PDF and WebWorks Help. This may work great (WebWorks ePublisher accepts Word, FM and even ditamaps and topics as input format). If so, don't change. We still have a lot of customers who are happily single-sourcing with this setup. >> I have been using unstructured FM for more than 15 years (gosh, I'm feeling very old now!) and I still enjoy authoring the odd unstructured FM doc every now and then. The added value of XML and DITA to me has been: * More and better reuse options using DITA conrefs * More publishing options using the DITA Open Toolkit, WebWorks ePublisher and some other great new publishing tools * Easier ways to deliver content to our customers. No more "FrameMaker vs. Word" discussions (yay!) * New, exciting ways to do collaborative content development > > > Another advantage in favor of XMetal should be that it has > vendor-supported integration with most content management systems (CMS). >>>
Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring
I haven't used XMetal, but we do use FM9 to author DITA XML, and ePublisher (XML adapter) to create online help. We author XML files and ditamaps in FM9. To create PDFs, we save our ditamaps as composite FM books, which works fine. After the books are generated, we apply templates to the FM files to make them look the way we want. From there, we generate our PDF files. However, WebWorks (ePublisher) says that it plans to create a PDF output that you can format from within ePublisher. If this works the way that I expect, we can generate all of our outputs through ePublisher. If you choose FM, do get FM9. It handles DITA much better than FM8. You cannot use callouts in graphics, but I think this is true of any DITA XML. We use attribute values and ditaval files instead of conditional text to perform conditional filtering. DITA/FM has its own "paragraph styles", but you can make them look however you want by editing the underlying templates and EDD files. CMS is not a consideration for us (yet), so I cannot answer to that. Nadine Andersen, Verner Engell VEA wrote: > Hi > I currently use unstructured Framemaker for pdf output. I single-source > my content - and via Webworks Publisher I output to context-sensitive > help in Webworks help format. > > My 5 colleagues use Word and output to pdf for printing. We plan to go > structured and are considering whether we should use Framemaker or > XMetal. > > Do any of you know where I can find an unbiased comparison of the two > tools? > > I have been told that the major disadvantage of using Framemaker is that > you are required to save in binary format to keep the > Framemaker-specific XML processing instructions (pls). If you store in > xml-format you cannot retrieve and maintain conditional text. Callouts > on drawings (the graphics tool in Framemaker) will be rasterized, and > even paragraph styles can be discarded if you save a document as XML. > > What are the implications of sacrificing saving documents as XML? > > Another advantage in favor of XMetal should be that it has > vendor-supported integration with most content management systems (CMS). > Apparently XMetal seems to be the best choice. > > What are your comments? > > Thanks, > > Verner > > > > Radiometer Medical ApS > Akandevej 21 > 2700 Bronshoj > Denmark > Phone: +45 38 27 38 27 > CVR: 27 50 91 85 > www.radiometer.com > For the latest trends in acute care testing, go to Radiometer's knowledge > site www.acutecaretesting.org > > > > > > Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. > If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or > re-transmit this email. If you have received this email in error, > please notify us by email by replying to the sender and by telephone > (call us collect at +1 202-828-0850) and delete this message and any > attachments. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance. > > In addition, Danaher and its subsidiaries disclaim that the content of > this email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, > any > contract or agreement or any amendment thereto; provided that the > foregoing disclaimer does not invalidate the binding effect of any > digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is > included in any attachment to this email. > ___ > > > You are currently subscribed to Framers as generic668 at yahoo.ca. > > 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/generic668%40yahoo.ca > > Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit > http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. > >
Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring
Just to repeat what Yves said .. if you're using DITA-FMx 1.1, you *can* actually use graphic overlay objects (callouts etc.) .. and this provides you the same level of DITA support in FM7.2, 8, and 9. If you're interested in seeing DITA-FMx and a CMS (XDocs) .. check out the webinar tomorrow .. http://leximation.com/dita-fmx/webinar.php Cheers, ...scott Scott Prentice Leximation, Inc. www.leximation.com +1.415.485.1892 Writer wrote: > I haven't used XMetal, but we do use FM9 to author DITA XML, and > ePublisher (XML adapter) to create online help. We author XML files and > ditamaps in FM9. To create PDFs, we save our ditamaps as composite FM > books, which works fine. After the books are generated, we apply > templates to the FM files to make them look the way we want. From there, > we generate our PDF files. However, WebWorks (ePublisher) says that it > plans to create a PDF output that you can format from within ePublisher. > If this works the way that I expect, we can generate all of our outputs > through ePublisher. > > If you choose FM, do get FM9. It handles DITA much better than FM8. > > You cannot use callouts in graphics, but I think this is true of any > DITA XML. > We use attribute values and ditaval files instead of conditional text to > perform conditional filtering. > DITA/FM has its own "paragraph styles", but you can make them look > however you want by editing the underlying templates and EDD files. > CMS is not a consideration for us (yet), so I cannot answer to that. > > Nadine > > Andersen, Verner Engell VEA wrote: > >> Hi >> I currently use unstructured Framemaker for pdf output. I single-source >> my content - and via Webworks Publisher I output to context-sensitive >> help in Webworks help format. >> >> My 5 colleagues use Word and output to pdf for printing. We plan to go >> structured and are considering whether we should use Framemaker or >> XMetal. >> >> Do any of you know where I can find an unbiased comparison of the two >> tools? >> >> I have been told that the major disadvantage of using Framemaker is that >> you are required to save in binary format to keep the >> Framemaker-specific XML processing instructions (pls). If you store in >> xml-format you cannot retrieve and maintain conditional text. Callouts >> on drawings (the graphics tool in Framemaker) will be rasterized, and >> even paragraph styles can be discarded if you save a document as XML. >> >> What are the implications of sacrificing saving documents as XML? >> >> Another advantage in favor of XMetal should be that it has >> vendor-supported integration with most content management systems (CMS). >> Apparently XMetal seems to be the best choice. >> >> What are your comments? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Verner >> >> >> >> Radiometer Medical ApS >> Akandevej 21 >> 2700 Bronshoj >> Denmark >> Phone: +45 38 27 38 27 >> CVR: 27 50 91 85 >> www.radiometer.com >> For the latest trends in acute care testing, go to Radiometer's knowledge >> site www.acutecaretesting.org >> >> >> >> >> >> Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. >> If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or >> re-transmit this email. If you have received this email in error, >> please notify us by email by replying to the sender and by telephone >> (call us collect at +1 202-828-0850) and delete this message and any >> attachments. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance. >> >> In addition, Danaher and its subsidiaries disclaim that the content of >> this email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, >> any >> contract or agreement or any amendment thereto; provided that the >> foregoing disclaimer does not invalidate the binding effect of any >> digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is >> included in any attachment to this email. >> >>
