I found ExtendScript unreliable. A build script that had been working
fine for months stopped working one day and given the lack of
documentation and support I gave up on it.
I bought FrameScript and it seems solid.
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Matt Sullivan wrote:
> I've had 3 clients this
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Bill Swallow wrote:
> I've not had an issue with messy HTML nor with controlling output file
> nesting.
How do you make RoboHelp not create a separate subdirectory in WebHelp
output for each document in a FrameMaker book? Or you just don't care
that it does that?
How solid TCS is for single-sourcing depends on your requirements.
FrameMaker is solid for PDF, and FrameMaker plus RoboHelp is solid for
WebHelp and HTML Help, but it's bad for Word, wiki XHTML, wiki markup,
or plain text. I use MIF2Go for those.
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Bill Swallow wr
I've not had an issue with messy HTML nor with controlling output file
nesting. As for tools, I based my recommendation on familiarity and not on
size of the Help. Since it's all FM source it really doesn't matter if
tools change or not (you're only recrafting content mapping and template
design),
RoboHelp's exported HTML is messy and I don't like the way it insists
on putting topics from each document in a FrameMaker book in a
separate directory in the generated help.
It works OK for generating help from FrameMaker, but given that Laura
has only one small project in RH, I would suggest usi
Using the phrase "one of the 'keeper' releases" seems like agreeing
with me that FM has gone downhill.
FM steadily if slowly improved from 1998 to 2007 (5.5.6 to 8). Adobe
completely screwed it up with version 9 (2009) and is still trying to
recover lost ground as far as stability and usability. I
I've used both FM+WWeP and FM+RH via the TCS extensively. "Best" lies in
many factors, but I can say with full confidence that both solutions are
solid for single-sourcing with FM source content.
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Writer wrote:
> >I'm a big advocate for WWeP but since they indica
>I'm a big advocate for WWeP but since they indicated they already use RH, the
>TCS option was a best fit.
It's A fit. Not sure I'd say "best".
Nadine
___
You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com.
Send list messages to fra
I'm a big advocate for WWeP but since they indicated they already use RH,
the TCS option was a best fit.
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Writer wrote:
> Bill said:
>
> >Well, you say you have FM experience already, and that you do only a
> little bit of help authoring. But, you'd need the Adob
I'd second all of Robert's comments except the last one about FM going
downhill.
FM 11 is solid, fast, and enhances or adds important new or missing
features. It's likely to be one of the "keeper" releases.
But if you are a small shop that does mostly online help or other online
deliverables, Fla
FrameMaker's stronger for PDF. RoboHelp works fine for generating help
from FrameMaker files though I prefer MIF2Go as it's more flexible.
Flare's help search engine is weak or at least was up to 7.1. I don't
much care for the way it forces you to put each topic in a separate
file.
FrameMaker has
I used Flare for about six months before moving back to FrameMaker and WebWorks
ePublisher.
I found that Flare was overly complex and hard to write in and took a lot more
tweaking than MadCap's promotional videos would lead you to believe. Web-based
output was good and fairly easy to set up but
Bill said:
>Well, you say you have FM experience already, and that you do only a little
>bit of help authoring. But, you'd need the Adobe Technical Communication suite
>to get an interconnected seat of both FM and RH for any single-sourced help
>authoring.
Only if you want to stick with a pur
13 matches
Mail list logo
