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:On rendering XML: A product tip From:"Broberg, Mats" <mabr -at- flir -dot- se> To:<techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Tue, 9 Oct 2007 08:57:50 +0200
[DISCLAIMER: Not in any way affiliated with the linked company below]
Dear all,
Having worked for five years with XML as the source data format for our
user documentation, I regard the formatting step as one of the key
problems with an XML workflow.
A few common scenarios that companies typically use for this step
include the following:
(1) An XSL workflow that uses one of the FO formatting engines that are
available (FOP from Apache, XEP from RenderX, XSL Formatter from Antenna
House, etc.)
(2) A DSSSL workflow that uses, e.g., Jade or NEXTPublisher to render,
e.g., RTF, TeX, PDF, etc.
(3) A workflow that relies on using Adobe FrameMaker as the formatting
engine.
(4) A workflow that relies on using a batch formatter with a graphical
front-end.
Each scenario has its own advantages and disadvantages.
With (1) and (2), many companies typically need external consultants to
write the stylesheets, which means that changing from one page design to
another can cost alot of money. Also, as many of you know, both XSL and
DSSSL has several weaknesses as pagination markup languages.
With (3), Adobe FrameMaker is used as the formatting engine. While
Framemaker is a very capable formatter - and excellent workflows indeed
exist using this approach - integrating FrameMaker in an full-fledged
XML workflow is not for the faint-of-heart, and usually out of reach for
small tech doc departments without external consultants. However,
integrated product suites based on Adobe FrameMaker do exist.
With (4) you let one of the industrial-strength batch formatters that
are available take care of the rendering of XML to PDF. While these
respectible formatters can output outstanding results, they typically
come with a five figure price tag, which means they are seldom an option
for smaller tech doc departments.
Enter Topleaf, a very impressive Australian product that seems to be
largely unknown in Europe and USA.
Topleaf has been available for many years, and is a product for
rendering SGML and XML source data to PDF, RTF and HTML. It does not
rely on an XSL or DSSSL workflow, and provides a user-friendly graphical
front-end to an extremely capable pagination engine. For tech doc
departments this is indeed an advantage compared to an XSL or DSSSL
workflow. Changing the design of a publication is easy - yet, the
formatter offers very advanced features and functions to control the
layout of the printed page.
Last, but not least - Topleaf comes with a highly attractive price tag,
definitely within the realm of the smaller tech doc department.
Best regards,
Mats Broberg
Technical Documentation Manager
Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats or
printed documentation. Features include support for Windows Vista & 2007
Microsoft Office, team authoring, plus more. http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList
True single source, conditional content, PDF export, modular help.
Help & Manual is the most powerful authoring tool for technical
documentation. Boost your productivity! http://www.helpandmanual.com
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
