RE: SUMMARY - Error on importing Word file to Frame+SGML

[m.oritz_b.erger@xxxxxxxxxxx (Moritz Berger)]

Jeremy,

I'm with you on many accounts. I feel, however, that it's slightly
misleading to blame 3rd parties for what Adobe has done to Frame. FYI:
I've been using Frame since version 2, so I didn't part ways with that
tool voluntarily.

> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-framers@omsys.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy H. Griffith
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 5:05 PM
> Subject: Re: SUMMARY - Error on importing Word file to Frame+SGML

> That said, this import filter problem is *not* evidence of
> malfeasance by FrameMaker engineering, for which I have the 
> highest regard. 

So where's Unicode support, to begin with?

I consider it somewhat embarassing that Frame 5.5.6 crashed when a font
happened to have "too many" kerning pairs (as it is the case e.g. with
Adobe's own OT Warnock Pro family).

Frame has many issues with EPS files (see this mailing list,
occasionally Dov Isaacs steps in with helpful workarounds, but in
general, InDesign just is a far superior choice if you happen to have to
deal with vector illustrations).

> Now Adobe, *not* known for irresponsible engineering, had a
> problem.  They couldn't just drop the filters again, there
> was a reason Frame needed them.  They weren't fixable, as
> it would be cheaper to start over.  But the cost of doing
> it right would be enormous,

My solid guess is that for $100.000 you could get a near perfect Word 97
import filter, considering that the format is very well documented by
Microsoft (and has been ever since 1997).

But, Adobe didn't care. From a product marketing point of view, that's
almost understandable. Having "working Word import filters" on your
feature list sounds boring in comparison with having "HTML export
capabilities" (even if they turn out to be another broken 3rd pary
product, namely WWP 6 Standard edition).

> and had to be weighed against
> other improvements the core product badly needed (many of which have 
> indeed been made).

And many of which have not been made, a state of affairs which I'm not
willing to endure for the next 5 years (yes, it's been that long since
Adobe got that horrendous start with Frame 5.bug.x).

>  In the end, they left the
> coprolites in place, merely adding new filters as needed.

> And *that* is the first thing to try.

I will give it a try, I promise. Even if it mostly concerns "legacy" FM
documents still sitting somewhere on my network.

> My modest suggestion to Adobe for Frame 7 is to drop
> the AW4W RTF filters entirely, and just call both
> the Japanese filters "RTF" (maybe list them twice in
> the dialog so nobody would think the Japanese version 
> had gone away).  That's a real easy one, and would save 
> on support calls and minimize user rage.  Please???

(European) tech support doesn't even know that the Jap filters are
there. At least they didn't give me that important piece of information
when I ran into a brick wall with the standard RTF filters (the Word
.DOC filters would just crash with files originating from Word 2002).
 
> I've heard from designers I know that InDesign is a
> fabulous product.  But it's for an entirely different
> purpose than FrameMaker, and it's hard to imagine a
> document that really *uses* Frame's capabilities where
> this transition would make much sense.

FYI: InDesign 2 now has tables, indices as well as XML tags (and XML
import/export capabilities). PLUS adequate HTML and SVG output (also
direct PDF 1.4 support). Wish I had some of that stuff in Frame!

Taken together with a judicious use of MS Word for story editing (that's
where cross-references, numbering formats and some other neat things
come from) plus an intermediate script to transform layout tags from
Word into InDesign equivalents, I'm almost where I want to be.

At long last I wouldn't have to endure Frame's ugly paragraph
composition engine any longer but get beautiful typographic quality,
including ligatures, old style figures etc. etc. etc.

> "Nobody gets out of here alive."  <bg>  But in the
> meantime, even with its infirmities, old FrameMaker 
> still gets a Gold from me.

I used to be a die hard frame user for about 10 years of my life. I
certainly know what you're talking about! But I've lost my faith in
Adobe, despite their noisy protests after Cringely stated Frame's demise
about a year ago ("unfounded rumours", that's how they put it).

Basically, I guess that InDesign will get most of the long document
stuff before too many of the sub-standard features of Frame get fixed.
This will make Frame even more of an endangered species than it is now.

FrameMaker certainly isn't dead today. It's more like a Zombie (if you
like that metaphor, Adobe could be a vampire, feeding on the remaining
substance of the product until it falls apart to ashes).

Moritz


** To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@omsys.com **
** with "unsubscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body.   **