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.
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."
317.562.9298 http://www.simplywritten.com
>
> 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.
>
