Re: ANN: DocFrame 1.0 for FrameMaker 7

["Sarah O'Keefe" <okeefe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I will try to address Dan's comments.

>At 10:51 AM 2/10/2003 -0800, DW Emory wrote:
>>I'm intrigued (perhaps a better word is puzzled) by Scriptorium's new 
>>offering of its DocFrame structured document license package. I took a 
>>look at the sample document (PDF) on the Scriptorium website, which was 
>>purportedly created from the DocFrame EDD. If that sample document is 
>>intended to show the EDD's full structured capabilities, then the 
>>documents producible by using it would have a distinctly bland, 
>>plain-vanilla flavor that lacks the kind of robust structure needed for 
>>complex technical documentation.

We used the DocFrame structure to write the DocFrame documentation (there's 
something amusingly recursive there). The structure works fine for user 
documentation.

**DocBook** is set up as a definitive, comprehensive structure for any and 
all technical documents. We took the opposite tack with DocFrame. We are 
providing the simplest possible structure that encapsulates common 
requirements for technical documentation. We expect that some users would 
want to customize DocFrame by adding a elements for their specific 
requirements. DocFrame provides a framework that minimizes the amount of 
customization/setup time required.

>>In fact, although Scriptorium's description of DocFrame does not 
>>explicitly state that its main purpose is to produce HTML and HTML help 
>>from XML output, that does appear to be its only useful capability. And 
>>if that's all it's good for, why does Scriptorium think anyone would be 
>>willing to shell out $3125 for a 5-pack (a Developer's license plus 5 
>>"Author" licenses) when you could buy the same capability for much less 
>>by sticking with unstructured Frame documents and using one copy of 
>>MIF2GO to produce the desired outputs of XML, HTML, and HTML help, and 
>>much more?

DocFrame allows you to produce structured FrameMaker and therefore XML. You 
can absolutely use MIF2GO or WWP to produce a pile of output formats. In 
fact, you could use them along with DocFrame structured files. The main 
difference is that DocFrame provides a structured environment for 
FrameMaker authoring (which MIF2GO and WWP don't...apples and oranges) and 
that you can further process the XML produced by DocFrame via free, 
standards-based XSL tools instead of working directly with FrameMaker files 
for conversion. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages.

>>What I think DocFrame was actually intended to be was a very simple 
>>structured document application suitable mainly for classroom training, 
>>as evidenced by the inclusion in the license package of Scriptorium's 
>>"complete FrameMaker Workbook series," plus the DocFrame Author's and 
>>Developer's Guides.

Interesting speculation, but entirely inaccurate. DocFrame is not used in 
any of our training classes, nor is it referenced in the workbooks. We 
included workbooks because we assume that many people who need structured 
authoring also need some help in getting up to speed on FrameMaker 
features. The DocFrame documentation refers people back to the workbooks 
and the Complete Reference for help learning how to do stuff in FrameMaker. 
That allows us to limit the content of the product documentation to, well, 
the product.

>>  For training purposes, I think Scriptorium has a great package, but its 
>> usefulness for actual production of real technical documents would seem 
>> to be extremely limited. For a comparison, take a look at my robust 
>> Procbook structured document application, which you can download for 
>> free from Shlomo Perets's www.microtype.com website (you'll find it 
>> under Dan Emory's articles).

DocFrame is obviously not appropriate for specialized applications designed 
by governments or standards organizations (such as the ATA docs mentioned 
in Procbook). On the other hand, I don't think Procbook is particularly 
suitable for typical software end-user guides. YMMV.

>>For the reasons cited above, I'm also puzzled by Scriptorium's DocFrame 
>>licensing approach. Clearly, any company which intended to use DocFrame 
>>for producing its technical documentation would have to make major 
>>changes to the delivered license package to make the product fit 
>>real-world requirements. These changes would impact the EDD, the DTD, the 
>>formatting template, the XML import/export application, the XSL 
>>transformations, and the DocFrame Author's and Developer's Guides. 
>>Consequently, there would never ba a need to purchase DocFrame author's 
>>licenses. Instead, such a company would purchase (at the exorbitant price 
>>of $1495) a single copy of the DocFrame Developer's License, make the 
>>necessary improvements and changes that fit its needs, and deliver the 
>>resulting modified versions of the structured template and the 
>>application files to all of its authors.

There are a number of problems with this statement, but I'll just deal with 
the factual one. Purchasing DocFrame, modifying it, and redistributing it 
without authoring licenses would violate the licensing agreement.

I will be happy to address additional questions on- or off-list. In 
particular, I'm interested in hearing from people who need structured 
authoring but have been hesitant to implement it because of the enormous 
cost of implementation. DocFrame can cut those costs. A lot.

Regards,

Sarah O'Keefe
Scriptorium Publishing
major co-perpetrator of DocFrame



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sarah O'Keefe           okeefe@scriptorium.com
Scriptorium Publishing Services, Inc.
DocFrame 1.0 for FrameMaker 7. Structured authoring and XML in minutes, not 
months!
http://www.scriptorium.com/docframe/


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