Re: Frame versus XSL-FO
Well, it was the original poster (Ed) who brought up DITA. And Author-IT is a ($$$) product; the DITA-OT is not (and was never intended to be one), it's a reference implementation. Cheers -- Yves Barbion www.scripto.nu ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to framers@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: Frame versus XSL-FO
You had to mention DITA, didn’t you? ;-) We’ve made FO stylesheets for PDF output from Author-IT, those typically take a couple of days. The DITA Open Toolkit looks positively byzantine by comparison. Harro de Jong From: framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Yves Barbion Sent: woensdag 27 februari 2013 15:58 To: framers@lists.frameusers.com Subject: Re: Frame versus XSL-FO Hi Harro If you can develop an FO stylesheet for DITA-sourced content in only 3 times the amount of time it takes me to develop the same DITA-FMx template, then we should talk. We may have a lot of work for you then. ;-) Cheers -- Yves Barbion www.scripto.nuhttp://www.scripto.nu On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Harro de Jong harro.dej...@triviewgroup.commailto:harro.dej...@triviewgroup.com wrote: That's not been my experience with FO templating. I've seen FO templating take maybe 1.5-3x as long as in FrameMaker. $200k sounds more like they developed an entire formatting engine. Harro de Jong Triview ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to framers@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: Frame versus XSL-FO
Hi Ed I'm not sure whether the DITA community is leaning towards XSL-FO. Yes, oXygen XML Author/Editor is an excellent DITA editor, but I fully agree with Scott: XSL-FO is complicated and expensive. The main reason why people TRY to use XSL-FO to generate PDFs from DITA-sourced content is because the FREE DITA Open Toolkit uses XSL-FO (with FREE FOP). Indeed, the DITA-OT is *FREE* (that's what people see), but it serves as a REFERENCE IMPLEMENTATION (and that's people often don't see). This means that the DITA-OT is a starting point; it is not a ready-to-use product which gives you high-quality output out of the box. Developing XSL-FO stylesheets means... development work, and this is where free becomes expensive. A single XSL-FO stylesheet for a publication can easily cost $10,000, exclusive of translations, modifications etc. Also, keep in mind that multiple stylesheets may be required for a single publication, for example: - A stylesheet for the table of contents - A stylesheet for the preface - A stylesheet for the parts or chapters in a book - A stylesheet for an appendix - A style for an index These can easily be created (and updated) with FrameMaker+DITA-FMx. Here are some examples of PDFs generated from DITA-sourced content: - Generated by our customer, using XSL-FO (FOP): http://help.esko.com/docs/en-us/suite-general/12/installationguide/Engines_12_InstallationGuide_EN.pdf - Generated by ourselves using DITA-FMx: http://www.adit.ws/nomadesk/help/help-manual.pdf If you want to see how the PDFs are generated with DITA-FMx, check out these screencasts on YouTube: http://goo.gl/BevKm Finally, apart from XSL-FO and FrameMaker, you could also use DITA2Go to generate PDFs from DITA-sourced content (via Word): www.dita2go.com Cheers -- Yves Barbion www.scripto.nu ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to framers@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: Frame versus XSL-FO
Also, I could not find the search capability on frameusers.com to search older topics by keyword other then the archive that looks like something out of the 90's. Am I missing some capability somewhere? I use the search at http://www.mail-archive.com/framers@lists.frameusers.com/info.html Harro de Jong Triview ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to framers@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: Frame versus XSL-FO
Scott Prentice wrote: If your PDF layout requirements are very simple, XSL-FO *may* be a good option for you. ... In my opinion, FO is good for high volume and moderate to low PDF formatting requirements. Yes, you can make it do most of what you can do with Frame, but it'll require a huge amount of coding and effort. I have seen people spend well over $200K on FO development over many years to achieve moderate looking PDFs. Something that might take a week to develop with FrameMaker. That's not been my experience with FO templating. I've seen FO templating take maybe 1.5-3x as long as in FrameMaker. $200k sounds more like they developed an entire formatting engine. Harro de Jong Triview ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to framers@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: Frame versus XSL-FO
Hi Harro If you can develop an FO stylesheet for DITA-sourced content in only 3 times the amount of time it takes me to develop the same DITA-FMx template, then we should talk. We may have a lot of work for you then. ;-) Cheers -- Yves Barbion www.scripto.nu On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Harro de Jong harro.dej...@triviewgroup.com wrote: That's not been my experience with FO templating. I've seen FO templating take maybe 1.5-3x as long as in FrameMaker. $200k sounds more like they developed an entire formatting engine. Harro de Jong Triview ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to framers@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: Frame versus XSL-FO
Harro... Yes .. $200K is a bit extreme, and hopefully not the norm, but that is what can happen over a number of years of tweaking and adjustments of FO stylesheets. Something that many groups do as a natural course of events through FrameMaker templates. My main point is that it's good to be aware that you'll need to outsource a task (page and layout design) that your existing employees are perfectly qualified to perform, when switching to an FO-based publishing workflow. Other benefits may offset that expense, which is fine. Cheers, ...scott On 2/27/13 3:19 AM, Harro de Jong wrote: Scott Prentice wrote: If your PDF layout requirements are very simple, XSL-FO *may* be a good option for you. ... In my opinion, FO is good for high volume and moderate to low PDF formatting requirements. Yes, you can make it do most of what you can do with Frame, but it'll require a huge amount of coding and effort. I have seen people spend well over $200K on FO development over many years to achieve moderate looking PDFs. Something that might take a week to develop with FrameMaker. That's not been my experience with FO templating. I've seen FO templating take maybe 1.5-3x as long as in FrameMaker. $200k sounds more like they developed an entire formatting engine. Harro de Jong Triview ___ ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to framers@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: Frame versus XSL-FO
Harro de Jong wrote: Also, I could not find the search capability on frameusers.com to search older topics by keyword other then the archive that looks like something out of the 90's. Am I missing some capability somewhere? I use the search at http://www.mail-archive.com/framers@lists.frameusers.com/info.html I use Google: search term site:frameusers.com Richard G. Combs Senior Technical Writer Polycom, Inc. richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom 303-223-5111 -- rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom 303-903-6372 -- ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to framers@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: Frame versus XSL-FO
Hi Ed... If your PDF layout requirements are very simple, XSL-FO *may* be a good option for you. However producing two 1000-page publications once a year doesn't seem like it's worth the cost of implementing an FO-based publishing workflow, considering the fact that you've already got a perfectly good PDF publishing engine, and (it sounds like) the knowledge/inclination to make it work (FrameMaker). In my opinion, FO is good for high volume and moderate to low PDF formatting requirements. Yes, you can make it do most of what you can do with Frame, but it'll require a huge amount of coding and effort. I have seen people spend well over $200K on FO development over many years to achieve moderate looking PDFs. Something that might take a week to develop with FrameMaker. The big thing that FO brings to the table is a simplified publishing pipeline. Implementing an automated XML+FM-based publishing workflow requires a bit more effort than a comparable FO-based workflow .. but in my opinion the PDF quality and the ability to easily make formatting adjustments to the FM-based process makes it a much better solution in most cases. However, if you're just producing two 1000-page publications each year, you don't need an automated solution, so the rationale for FO would be reduced. FO does also offer benefit if you're publishing to many (20+) languages, because managing FM templates/apps for many languages can be tedious (although I've got one client who is using DITA-FMx [the DITA+FM solution I offer] to publish to 27 different languages). XSL-FO is a very complex language to learn and develop .. probably the most difficult I've encountered. People often head down the FO path because it's free (but no). First, you'll start with the default transforms provided with the DITA-OT .. this provides a very rough proof of concept .. sure, you'll get PDFs, but they are really ugly. So you start tweaking the FO code. Then you end up paying someone else to tweak the FO code .. more and more .. and finally get to something that looks acceptable. As long as your formatting requirements don't change, you're OK, but if you need to move a header or change a font, you'll probably need to hire that developer to tweak your code again. With FM, you may need to hire someone to set things up (maybe not if you've got the expertise), but once it's set up, you'll be able to go in and tweak the templates or EDD as needed. Also, with FM you have access to the intermediate file (post rendering and pre-publishing), in case you need to make a manual adjustment. With FO, you're stuck if something doesn't render properly. You either have to weak the FO code more and hope it works, or just accept the formatting deficiency. As you can see, this is something I feel quite passionate about. I may be a little biased, but I try to remain open minded, and do know that FO is a good solution for some situations. I don't think it's a good solution for you, but you may want to travel that path for a bit to see for yourself. Cheers! ...scott Scott Prentice Leximation, Inc. www.leximation.com +1.415.485.1892 On 2/25/13 7:40 PM, Ed Nodland wrote: I have been using Framemaker to produce two 1000 page publications every October since 2006. Now I am faced with two issues. 1) Clean up my XML, EDD and template file for full round trip capabilities; and 2) Convert to a DITA structure prior to adding several other publications The DITA community is leaning towards an editopr like OxygenXML and using XSL-FO and a rendering package such as RenderX or Antenna House to produce the PDF. _I am interested in any opinions_. Also, I could not find the search capability on frameusers.com http://frameusers.com to search older topics by keyword other then the archive that looks like something out of the 90's. Am I missing some capability somewhere? Thanks Ed ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to framers@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.
