TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Methinks making the round trip from FrameMaker to Word and back to
FrameMaker will be no easy task. In large part, this is because FrameMaker
and Word bring to the table different features and very different ways of
However, that is not to say the round trip cannot be done. Consider my
Import all graphics by reference into Word as well as into FrameMaker. Set
up the word DOT to match your FrameMaker styles, especially by name of style
and especially not forgetting to match capitalisation. Cross-references
technically should convert from Word to FrameMaker, but good luck ;?). You
will probably have to rework generated lists, such as TOC and index for each
software package. Under no circumstances permit the Word users to apply bold
and italic text, or colors. Keep all the text black and regular. Tables
technically should import into FrameMaker from Word, but I'm not sure if
they go back. In any event, I recommend you specify tab or comma delimited
text instead of tables. Headers and footers probably wont work too well,
With the previous in mind, the FrameMaker and Word RTF export and import
filters should shake hands. FrameMaker 5.5.6 has a Word 97 import filter.
Both the RTF and Word import filters in FrameMaker are kind of slow and
their accuracy is questionable for long complex Word docs.
My understanding is that to use MIF2GO (http://www.omsys.com/), you export
your FrameMaker files as MIF (Maker Interchange Format) and then run the MIF
through MIF2GO to get good RTF. Certainly, MIF2GO claims to be more accurate
than FrameMaker's included filters.
Another tool to look at for round-tripping with Word and FrameMaker is
Filtrix (http://www.blueberry.com). Filtrix might let you export directly to
Word and import from Word with increased speed and accuracy. I have not used
this product, either (I really don't use Word in conjunction with
FrameMaker, much--I have all but eliminated Word from my workflow, I use it
more at home).
If round-tripping is an absolute requirement, I do strongly recommend you
test the round-tripping thoroughly before committing to FrameMaker. You
might even want to wait for the much anticipated FrameMaker 6 release, to
see what filter improvements Adobe adds . . ..
> -----Original Message-----
> From: R2 Innovations [SMTP:R2innovations -at- myna -dot- com]
> While reviewing postings re Word > Frame > Word processes i came upon
> an interesting point that I need clarification on. A good number of
> posting refered to a 3rd party program mif2go as being an ideal way
> to make Frame files available for editing in by Word users. As I
> understand it, you create an .rtf file from your Frame document that
> can be viewed and edited in Word and then convert the revised .rtf
> file back to a Frame file using this program. Have I got it right,
> so far?
> If this process is true, why do you need mif2go when in Frame 5.5 and up
> you can save your Frame files as an .rtf file? Is this program only
> used for Frame versions prior to 5.5? Or, is there a problem with the
> rtf files generated in this manner?
> I need to get this clear as my employer is talking about switching the
> Engineering Publications Department to Frame (for all the right
> reasons) from Word 97 while the engineers will only have Word to work
> with. These documents are often revised many times, and I can see
> major problems looming on the horizon when the engineers can no
> longer get a _copy_ of the source files to revise and submit to the
> Publications department for the changes
> Using PDF files and
> having the engineers add notation via Adobe Acrobat is _not_ a viable
> Ralph E. Robinson