Re: Frame's future

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 transfera

Re: Frame's future

[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 fro

RE: Frame's future

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 Fra

Re: Frame's future

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, is that companies will segregate writers into those who know the tools, and those who don't. If

Re: Frame's future

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 demi

RE: Frame's future

ers 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 -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 t

RE: Frame's future

will improve 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 +

RE: Frame's future

> 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 to

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

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 IE

RE: Frame's future

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 a

Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

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:

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

MAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:49 PM To: Paul Findon; Frame Users; Free Framers List; Steve Rickaby Subject: Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX Considering that Microsoft couldn't seem to port Internet Explorer to OS X, it must be insurmountable. Scott At 5:12 PM +00

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

> 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 st

RE: Frame's future

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 addre

Re: Frame's future

At 09:21 + 2/3/07, Bodvar Bjorgvinsson wrote: >My advise if for them to read Joe Sutter's "747 -- Creating the >World's First Jumbo Jet and Other Adventures from a Life in Aviation". Thanks, Bodvar. And when you've finished that, try Tracey Kidder's 'The Soul of a New Machine', about how Dat

Re: Frame's future

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 we

RE: Frame's future

ogging this dead horse. john 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.

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

figures 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: >

Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

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

Re: Frame's future

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: > C

RE: Frame's future

as built on DOS, 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

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

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? --- Dov Isaacs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is

Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

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

Re: Frame's future

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 mac

Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

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 describ

Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

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 not

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

At 10:34 -0700 1/3/07, Combs, Richard wrote: >I expect that the more extreme fundamentalist Apple-ists will threaten >to behead you any time now for your apostasy. You're the Salman Rushdie >of the Macintosh! ;-) Cripes :-( Actually, I haven't given up hope, but I prefer to base my hopes on logi

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

> -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 underpin

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

7 8:39 AM > To: framers@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" >

Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

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.

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

Steve Rickaby wrote: > 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 produ

Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

At 17:12 + 1/3/07, Paul Findon wrote: >Who's side are you on, Steve ;-) Garn, Paul... you shouldn't need to ask me that. I borrowed the campaign T-shirt, after all ;-) And suffered for The Cause: after barracking the Adobe lot at IPEX I got comprehensively sneezed on by a Japanese visitor a

Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

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

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

>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 al

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

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

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, Illustrator, InDesign, etc. etc. So Adobe employs people who know

Re: Frame's future

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 machi

Re: Frame's future

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 the

Re: Frame's future

> 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

Re: Frame's future

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,

Re: Frame's future

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

Re: Frame's future

On 28 Feb 2007, at 14:53, 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, we'll

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

--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 wholly clueless here.

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 considered Linux? --- Paul Findon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One of our frustrations is > that there is no > F

Re: Frame's future

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 __

Re: Frame's future

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 pro

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

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

Re: Frame's future

> 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 acknowled

Re: Frame's future

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 our

Re: Frame's future

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 PROT

Re: Frame's future

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 firs

Re: Frame's future

To: Wayne 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 exclusivel

Re: Frame's future

ruary 25, 2007 1:25 PM To: Wayne 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 devel

Re: Frame's future

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

RE: Frame's future

k so! - Dov > -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: > > >

RE: Frame's future

> -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: > > >

RE: Frame's future

1:25 PM > To: Wayne 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 Mac

Re: Frame's future

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 continued

Re: Frame's future

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 continued

Re: Frame's future

On 21 Feb 2007, at 17:28, Dov Isaacs wrote: There is no reason for me to doubt the veracity of your claim vis-a-vis the order of appearance of FrameMaker on various platforms. However, you or I like it or not, rational business decisions are made on the basis of current market conditions, not

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 that apparently at least some within Apple would have liked Adobe to pu

Re: Frame's future

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 t

Re: Frame's future

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

Re: Frame's future

oints that we don't want to undercut My opinions only; I don;t speak for Intel. Fred Ridder Intel Parsippany, NJ From: Steve Rickaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Guy K. Haas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: framers@lists.frameusers.com Subject: Re: Frame's future Date: Sun, 25

Re: Frame's future

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

RE: Frame's future

ary 24, 2007 3:23 PM > 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

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 this? Been running FM 7.2 on Vista for a few weeks now. None of my Type 1 fonts work (which

Re: Frame's future

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 m

Re: Frame's future

At 20:27 -0800 23/2/07, Guy K. Haas wrote: >What does it mean "FrameMaker supports Vista"? Does it just mean >"FrameMaker 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. working pr

Re: Frame's future

What does it mean "FrameMaker supports Vista"? Does it just mean "FrameMaker 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 it do endnote

Re: Frame's future

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 Fra

Re: Frame's future

Guy K. Haas wrote: Paul Findon wrote: Personally, I'm looking forward to the new Madcap Blaze, which Madcap describe as the "ultimate alternative to Adobe FrameMaker." Me too, Paul, but has ANYBODY got any info on how their beta is doing, or whether it is ev

Third-party or "out of the box" plugins [was "re: Frame's future"]

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 a

Re: Frame's future

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 b

Re: Frame's future

Paul Findon wrote: Personally, I'm looking forward to the new Madcap Blaze, which Madcap describe as the "ultimate alternative to Adobe FrameMaker." Me too, Paul, but has ANYBODY got any info on how their beta is doing, or whether it is even underway? I kno

Re: Frame's future

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 F

Re: Frame's future

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 10

Third-party or "out of the box" plugins [was "re: Frame's future"]

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 in

Third-party or "out of the box" plugins [was "re: Frame's future"]

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

Third-party or "out of the box" plugins [was "re: Frame's future"]

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

Third-party or "out of the box" plugins [was "re: Frame's future"]

Marcus Carr 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 a much smalle

Third-party or "out of the box" plugins [was "re: Frame's future"]

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 fu

Re: Third-party or "out of the box" plugins [was "re: Frame's future"]

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

Re: Third-party or "out of the box" plugins [was "re: Frame's future"]

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 for

Re: Third-party or "out of the box" plugins [was "re: Frame's future"]

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 in

Re: Third-party or "out of the box" plugins [was "re: Frame's future"]

[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.

Re: Third-party or "out of the box" plugins [was "re: Frame's future"]

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

Third-party or "out of the box" plugins [was "re: Frame's future"]

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 functionalit

RE: Frame's future

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

Third-party or "out of the box" plugins [was "re: Frame's future"]

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 attempt

Third-party or "out of the box" plugins [was "re: Frame's future"]

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 attempt

Re: Frame's future

s that there ARE plugins, 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 exc

Re: Frame's future

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 > d

RE: Frame's future

Message- Subject: 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 incorporat

RE: Frame's future

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 a

RE: Frame's future

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

re: Frame's future

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. -- sug

Re: Frame's future

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

Re: Frame's future

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 savi

  1   2   >