Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring

[Liz Fraley]

I agree that for efficient, cost-effective localization, you need to
be in XML. We just helped a customer reduce the cost of translation
for one document from $20K to $6K.  And this is the number for just
one book and one product. (As a side note, this particular customer
went to Arbortext from Frame.)

Interesting that you had trouble getting XMetal to produce PDF. I know
Arbortext doesn't.

Liz


On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Joe Campo<joe.campo at solidworks.com> wrote:
> Hi Verner
> We are migrating to XMetal DITA from RoboHelp and Frame/webworks. We
> like that XMetal is in one package and we don't have to worry about
> maintaining multiple applications to output our deliverables (chm,
> single html, and pdf). Granted the PDF output has been difficult to
> achieve, but we have a Tools person who has been able to customize
> output to meet our needs.
>
> Translation was another driver in adopting XMetal. We localize into many
> languages and the ease of working with pure XML files makes life much
> easier for Translators, who could not process .fm files directly.
>
> As the others have written, analyze and base your choice on your needs.
> Mind that converting legacy to XML DITA, no matter what your tool, will
> have a huge impact on translation memory. If you do translation, make
> sure to involve that team for input.
>
> Good luck.
> Joe Campo
> DS SolidWorks
> Concord, MA USA
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring
>      (Andersen, Verner Engell VEA)
>   2. Re: Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring (Yves Barbion)
>   3. Re: Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring (Writer)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:04:20 +0200
> From: "Andersen, Verner Engell VEA" <verner.andersen at radiometer.dk>
> Subject: Framemaker vs XMetal for structured authoring
> To: <framers at lists.frameusers.com>,     "FrameMaker discussion list
>        (omsys) (FrameMaker discussion list     (omsys))"
> <framers at omsys.com>
> Message-ID:
>
> <FD738D92925FDD4183417FCAE6660D7605015F7B at dhreinsvxb03.messaging.danaher
> ad.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi
> I currently use unstructured Framemaker for pdf output. I single-source
> my content - and via Webworks Publisher I output to context-sensitive
> help in Webworks help format.
>
> My 5 colleagues use Word and output to pdf for printing. We plan to go
> structured and are considering whether we should use Framemaker or
> XMetal.
>
> Do any of you know where I can find an unbiased comparison of the two
> tools?
>
> I have been told that the major disadvantage of using Framemaker is that
> you are required to save in binary format to keep the
> Framemaker-specific XML processing instructions (pls). If you store in
> xml-format you cannot retrieve and maintain conditional text. Callouts
> on drawings (the graphics tool in Framemaker) will be rasterized, and
> even paragraph styles can be discarded if you save a document as XML.
>
> What are the implications of sacrificing saving documents as XML?
>
> Another advantage in favor of XMetal should be that it has
> vendor-supported integration with most content management systems (CMS).
> Apparently XMetal seems to be the best choice.
>
> What are your comments?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Verner
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> You are currently subscribed to Framers as caltonia at gmail.com.
>
> Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com.
>
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com
> or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/caltonia%40gmail.com
>
> Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit
> http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
>