What was the advantage of doing that over using the .fm binaries? Or was it just that the system didn't support binaries?
I've spent a lot of time poking around in MIF files troubleshooting problems, and I can't quite imagine doing a merge. It doesn't seem like a practical format for that kind of workflow. On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Craig Ede <craigede at hotmail.com> wrote: > MIF is the Framemaker text format. RCS or any other revision control system > can be used to store revision histories of Framemaker documents stored in > MIF. I wouldn't expect it to be very efficient in terms of space. > > Companies I have worked with have routinely controlled FM documents in RCS > using scripts that utilized FM fmbatch to convert saved books to MIF check > them in and out of RCS. The time involved to run the scripts tiny, but the > storage use was large since MIFs are verbose and change many things beyond > the actual text in the document from save to save. > > Craig > > -----Original Message----- > From: framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com > [mailto:framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Robert Lauriston > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 10:45 AM > To: Sonnenberg, Aryeh; framers at lists.frameusers.com > Subject: Re: Version Control Suggestions > > Not to my knowledge. To merge in a source-control system, the source files > must be in a text format, such as DocBook, DITA XML, or MadCap Flare's > proprietary XHTML. > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Sonnenberg, Aryeh > <Aryeh.Sonnenberg at emc.com> wrote: >> So, in the unstructured environment, there is no tool available for this? > >
