<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#336666">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Harro...<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
...scott<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">
</pre>
On 2/27/13 3:19 AM, Harro de Jong wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5613EEAC7C0654468B9CB4C9D44494E208D13B6A@tvnlex01.triviewgroup.local"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Scott Prentice wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
If your PDF layout requirements are very simple, XSL-FO *may* be a good option
for you. ...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
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
_______________________________________________
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>