Corporate madness - Adobe software to be subscription only

[Rick Quatro]

Hi Tino,

 

I get what you are saying. Maybe instead of "print engine" I should use the term "layout engine". In my opinion, the whole EDD concept for formatting XML in FrameMaker is very powerful and accessible. I don't think there is anything quite as good in the XML world, especially if you need quality print and PDF output. Thanks for the feedback.

 

Rick

 

From: framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Heiko Haida
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 2:11 PM
To: Framers
Subject: RE: Corporate madness - Adobe software to be subscription only

 

Dear Rick,

please allow one note about the "print engine".

FrameMaker is still using the old Distiller engine (at least version 10 does).
I recently had to switch a workflow from Indesign to FrameMaker and found it annoying that Indesign would produce a valid PDF right away whereas with FrameMaker I have to correct all PDFs in Acrobat to produce PDF/X3 with color profile and valid bleed box.
And as transparency is not fully supported via the Distiller engine, the actual PDF/X4 format cannot be produced (the favorite format for one of our printing service companies).

So finally, I came to think that not FrameMaker, but Indesign may have one of the best "print engines" - at least more flexible and more up to date than FrameMaker's.

Best regards -

Tino H. Haida, Berlin

 

Rick Quatro:

Here is my suggestion on where to start. I would like a light-weight editor
where the user could apply styles, insert tables, images, etc. The styles
would be mapped to a schema so that the user could output XML. Then a full
copy of FrameMaker could be used as "print engine". You would set up a
structured application in full FrameMaker, and import the XML for print,
etc.
 
The reasons I favor this approach:
 
1) FrameMaker is currently the best "print engine" on the market for
producing high-quality print/PDF output.
 
2) With a light-weight editor, you would only need one copy of FrameMaker
for output. The rest of the writers/editors could use the light-weight
editor.
 
3) You could easily exchange content with users of other XML editors as long
as everyone is using the same schema.
 
4) This is a realistic "first step" to a FrameMaker replacement. Anything
more complex may be too ambitious and not get too far.
 
Rick Quatro
Carmen Publishing Inc.
585-283-5045
rick at frameexpert.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.frameusers.com/pipermail/framers-frameusers.com/attachments/20130514/b78eb00f/attachment.htm>