Re: pdf vs. html

Subject: Re: pdf vs. html
From: Suzette Seveny <sseveny -at- PETVALU -dot- COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:53:13 -0400


I think you've said this very well! I had not had time yet to gather my
thoughts and explain why FrameMaker and not just Acrobat, but these were
exactly the reasons. Thank you for explaining it.

Suzette Seveny
Markham, Ontario, Canada
sseveny -at- petvalu -dot- com or suzette -at- yesic -dot- com

Steve Pendleton wrote:
> >Why are buying FrameMaker to create PDF files? Just buy Adobe Acrobat
> Exchange.
> Using Frame as a front end to Acrobat, you can easily, cheaply, and
> quickly
> create professional-quality hypertext systems. All of the generated
> front and
> back matter (TOC, LOF, LOT, index) automatically becomes hypertext;
> so do the cross references (see XXX on page YYY). You can also create
> additional links through hypertext markers on the master pages or
> anywhere
> in the text. Most of the whizzies developed for FrameViewer also
> translate
> just fine to Acrobat. Currently, most PDF files are just a dump of the
> printing
> master to PDF. They don't begin to approach the potential of the medium
> when used for purpose-built online books.
> (Having said that, I'm ready to give up Frame for native HtmlHelp
> authoring, but that's a sidebar of its own.)
> >You postscript Word files, and then use Distiller (part of the
> >Exchange package) to distill the postcript files into PDF.
> To the best of my knowledge, the only way to get hypertext from Word to
> PDF is to paint in each link by hand each time you build. Ouch. With
> Frame,
> your links are encoded in the source.
> >Acrobat Exchange costs about $200, FrameMaker costs about $2000.
> This is untrue. Frame is what, maybe $500. I'm pretty sure it currently
> comes with the complete Acrobat package-why buy Acrobat alone
> when a little more buys both?
> >FrameMaker is great, but not if all you want to do is deliver Word
> files using PDF.
> That's not all I want to do. ;-)
> I don't want to start any flame wars, but to my eyes Word was designed
> as
> a general office package for people who are not aimed at the kind of
> book production commonplace among technical writers. It does not
> emphasize the kind of layout, text, and typesetting control needed
> for professional-quality book-length documents. Many of its shortcuts
> are
> unwise for lengthy structured documents. Its style sheet features are
> awkward and frustrating. Frame, in contrast is a purpose-built solution
> aimed at
> technical writers.

Previous by Author: Re: "Wish" in tech docs
Next by Author: Re: Charge for Travel Time?
Previous by Thread: Re: pdf vs. html
Next by Thread: SUMMARY: Real Tech Writers Don't Use Microsoft Publisher

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

Sponsored Ads