Re: Help! Framemaker vs. Quark

Subject: Re: Help! Framemaker vs. Quark
From: Tracy Boyington <tracy_boyington -at- okvotech -dot- org>
To: TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 13:56:18 -0500

We use Quark here. It's a great tool for short, graphic-intensive documents.
Unfortunately, that's not what we produce. :-P


> FrameMaker goes well to HTML, XML, and especially to PDF. Quark
> might not be so good with indexes and TOCs and tables and cross-refs, etc.
>
The version of Quark we have (3.x) does not convert to HTML, though later
versions might (we were told not to upgrade to 4.0 because there were so many
problems, and if it has more problems than 3.x I wouldn't touch it with *your*
10 foot pole.) It also doesn't do tables. Not at all. Unless you add an
"extension" (plug-in), and then (I'm told) it still does them poorly. Again,
the newest version may not have this shortcoming, but for some TWs the ability
to do tables would be a major factor, so that may be the point where you want
to dig in your heels and say "over my dead body."

And, as someone else said, is there a reason you should use what marketing
uses?

Tracy
--
=======================================================
Tracy Boyington mailto:tracy_boyington -at- okvotech -dot- org
Oklahoma Department of Vocational & Technical Education
Stillwater, Oklahoma http://www.okvotech.org/cimc
Give a hoot... read a book
=======================================================






Previous by Author: Re: Test for broken links
Next by Author: Re: Need help with a term
Previous by Thread: RE: Help! Framemaker vs. Quark
Next by Thread: RE: Help! Framemaker vs. Quark


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads