Frame versus XSL-FO

[Scott Prentice]

Harro...

Yes .. $200K is a bit extreme, and hopefully not the norm, but that is 
what can happen over a number of years of tweaking and adjustments of FO 
stylesheets. Something that many groups do as a natural course of events 
through FrameMaker templates. My main point is that it's good to be 
aware that you'll need to outsource a task (page and layout design) that 
your existing employees are perfectly qualified to perform, when 
switching to an FO-based publishing workflow. Other benefits may offset 
that expense, which is fine.

Cheers,

...scott

On 2/27/13 3:19 AM, Harro de Jong wrote:
> Scott Prentice wrote:
>
>
>> If your PDF layout requirements are very simple, XSL-FO *may* be a good option
>> for you. ...
>> In my opinion, FO is good for high volume and moderate to low PDF formatting
>> requirements. Yes, you can make it do most of what you can do with Frame, but it'll
>> require a huge amount of coding and effort. I have seen people spend well over
>> $200K on FO development over many years to achieve moderate looking PDFs.
>> Something that might take a week to develop with FrameMaker.
> That's not been my experience with FO templating. I've seen FO templating take maybe 1.5-3x as long as in FrameMaker. $200k sounds more like they developed an entire formatting engine.
>
> Harro de Jong
> Triview
> _______________________________________________
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.frameusers.com/pipermail/framers-frameusers.com/attachments/20130227/4b8b1599/attachment.htm>