Re: The Old Argument: Framemaker vs. MS Word

Subject: Re: The Old Argument: Framemaker vs. MS Word
From: "Tim Altom" <taltom -at- simplywritten -dot- com>
To: "Darren Barefoot" <dbarefoot -at- mpsbc -dot- com>, "TechDoc List" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:40:38 -0500

Actually , I'd modify the final statement to read "...FrameMaker plus
available third-party software is a viable alternative." FrameMaker itself
is, and was designed to be, a fairly standalone sort of application, but one
that was easily integrated with other software to produce solutions. Frame,
for example, is expandable with its own programming language, and there are
filters such as MIF2GO that can easily and quickly produce WinHelp, HTML
Help, or JavaHelp. Frame outputs good, clean PostScript, which can then
become PDF. Further, Frame's conditional text and excellent template hooks
make it fairly simple to make two totally redesigned documents emerge from a
single parent. Word, even Word 2000, can't begin to match these features.

Tim Altom
Simply Written, Inc.
Featuring FrameMaker and the Clustar Method(TM)
"Better communication is a service to mankind."

> The reality is, if you want to generate a number of digital output formats
> (HTML, HTMLHelp, WinHelp, PDF, etc.), FrameMaker is not a viable
> alternative. DB.

Previous by Author: Re: Plain English explanation of use cases??
Next by Author: Re: Single source PDF
Previous by Thread: Re[2]: The Old Argument: FrameMaker vs. MS Word
Next by Thread: Re: The Old Argument: Framemaker vs. MS Word

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads