Re: WWP vs. mif2rtf

[jeremy@xxxxxxxxx (Jeremy H. Griffith)]

On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:30:39 -0800, "Snavely, Deborah" <dsnavely@visa.com>
wrote:

>Just to note:
>If mif2rtf ever becomes available under the MacOS, I'll have occasion to
>consider it. The same was true the first time I did such an evaluation, in
>1994-1995. 

You'll be happy to know that we are currently actively pursuing a
Mac port, which would include the FDK interface.  Stay tuned...

>And the whole issue of Frame conversion and appropriate tools depends
>primarily on the purposes of the conversion: 
>*	Frame to WinHelp
>*	Frame to AppleGuide
>*	Frame to HTML-based help
>*	Frame to intranet web site as HTML or PDF
>*	Frame to Internet web site as HTML or PDF
>*	Frame to CD-ROM publishing as HTML or PDF
>*	Frame to PDF for delivery to print vendors
>*	all of the above (single-sourcing) 
>
>If one conversion program can ever be all things to all users, it will
>resemble IBM's mainframe application programs of the 1960s. To quote a
>retired engineer-programmer: "They were so powerful you could do ANYthing
>with them, and they were so complex it took a year to learn to do ANYTHING
>with them."

True.  However, I think that when we say "single-sourcing", we mean
that there is a single source of content, in this case the FrameMaker
files, rather than a single tool to do all things.  For example, with
mif2rtf, you use the same FrameMaker files for WinHelp, Word, and HTML.
However, you use a different program module for HTML, and your .ini
settings are different for all three formats.  You may well use a
different FM "conversion template" file for each format too.  And you
are using the same FM files for print docs and for PDF.  To us, that
is still single sourcing, even though numerous tools are used.

-- Jeremy H. Griffith, at Omni Systems Inc.
  (jeremy@omsys.com)  http://www.omsys.com/

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