High quality images

[Dov Isaacs]

Psst. A dirty little not-so-secret.

FrameMaker does NOT support "native .AI files."
What it does support are Adobe Illustrator files
saved with the PDF-compatibility option. When you
import such files, FrameMaker's import filter ignores
the private Illustrator data in such files and treats
them as PDF files and internally converts the PDF to
EPS.

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: Kenneth C. Benson
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 6:37 PM
> To: 'Framers List'
> Subject: Re: High quality images
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Matt Sullivan" 
> 
> > Along those lines, another client refuses to import native 
> .ai files 
> > and instead uses EPS because of the .5 second delay in preview. The 
> > little things count when multipled out hundreds of times!
> 
> 
> Funny, I began saving all graphics (even bitmaps) as EPS 
> years ago for just that reason. EPS moves faster because the 
> preview is really bad (or nonexistent). Of course, ten years 
> ago, it was considerably more than a half a second to pull up 
> a letter-size 600 ppi scan.
> 
> Kenneth Benson

FM 7.1 Compatibility

[Dov Isaacs]

To be fair, I would not say that "FM has always had
issues with OLE" but rather that OLE has always required
"two to tango" and to tango to the same music at that!
Adobe's use of OLE in FrameMaker is actually fairly
stable. On the other hand, some Microsoft applications,
notably Visio as a particular example, have been known
to have somewhat less than robust OLE implementations.
FWIW, I had some "live" FrameMaker documents with OLE
links into Excel spreadsheets that worked like a charm
all the way from FrameMaker 5.5.6 through 7.1. The only
reason I don't use that OLE scenario anymore is that I
don't use that document anymore!

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: Behalf Of T.W. Smith
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 7:37 PM
> To: William Gaffga
> Cc: Framers List
> Subject: Re: FM 7.1 Compatibility
> 
> No.
> 
> I wouldn't move a production machine to Vista for at least 
> another 9 months.
> I'd run SnagIt on the test box and document on XP.
> 
> However, FM has always had issues with OLE, I recommend 
> avoiding it on any and all OSes.
> 

FM 7.1 Compatibility

[Dov Isaacs]

PS: I would strongly concur about any migrations from
Windows 2000 or especially Windows XP to Vista. Unless
you have a brand new system with tons of memory, dual
cores, high speed graphics card, and plenty of extra
disk space, use of Vista to support typical FrameMaker
and associated support programs (including Photoshop,
Illustrator, and Acrobat) buys you precious little other
than a sluggish system. Best idea is to wait until you
need to replace your current computers.

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: T.W. Smith
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 7:37 PM
> To: William Gaffga
> Cc: Framers List
> Subject: Re: FM 7.1 Compatibility
> 
> No.
> 
> I wouldn't move a production machine to Vista for at least 
> another 9 months.
> I'd run SnagIt on the test box and document on XP.
> 
> However, FM has always had issues with OLE, I recommend 
> avoiding it on any and all OSes.

RE: High quality images

[Dov Isaacs]

Matt,

Several observations:

(1) There is something drastically wrong with your
RIP if it is slowing down when faced with compressed
images.

(2) How an image is compressed in a TIFF file is
irrelevant in terms of what FrameMaker, the PostScript
driver, and if you are using a PDF workflow, what
the Distiller and Acrobat's print routines do with
the image with regards to compression. Any LZW or ZIP
compression in a screen shot (or any other image)
imported into FrameMaker is absolutely lost when
FrameMaker sends the image data to the PostScript driver!

- Dov

 -Original Message-
 From: Matt Sullivan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:45 PM
 To: Dov Isaacs; 'Framers List'
 Subject: RE: High quality images
 
 Dov, one clarification/question regarding your advice for 
 screen shots...
 
 In my commercial printing experience, I found TIFF to be a 
 great option for bitmap files including screen shots. 
 However, I always recommended staying away from the ZIP 
 compression option. Though a lossless format, both 
 compression and scaling tended to horribly slow down our RIP process.
 Though not much of an issue for small files, there also isn't 
 much advantage to compressing such small files, either.
 
 In my experience with large full-color CMYK images, the ZIP 
 compression saved roughly 15% of the file size. For that 
 smaller size, the RIP time would often increase by a factor 
 of 4x or 5x. Scaling the image within the application (with 
 the exception of InDesign) would also slow the RIP. In each 
 case, the application passes the processing (decompression, 
 scaling, and rotating) off to the RIP. If we're all saving to 
 PDF  printing the PDF, then most RIP's will hardly hiccup, 
 and given the speed of most PDF generation, it's doubtful 
 you'll be troubled by a (statistically) slower conversion. 
 Lesson: Convert to PDF with appropriate settings prior to printing.
 
 Back to scren shots: From my point of view, if saving to PDF 
 the compression is unnecessary, as you can choose to compress 
 in the Distilling process. If sending for commercial print, 
 then the file savings is likely outweighed by additional RIP 
 (processing) time.
 
 For screen captures, my clients have the best success simply 
 pasting from SnagIt, or their application of choice. As the 
 files would almost never be modified in a bitmap editor, but 
 simply re-captured, the image on disk is a bit redundant. 
 Anyone care to comment on the pro's and con's of simply 
 pasting SCREEN CAPTURES only?
 
 Matt Sullivan
 GRAFIX Training, Inc.
 888/882-2819
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 rs.com] On Behalf Of Dov Isaacs
 Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 12:48 AM
 To: Sean; framers@lists.frameusers.com
 Subject: RE: High quality images
 
 I must strongly disagree with ANY advice to resample screen 
 shots at any stage of the workflow prior to the RIP.
 Although this might not be intuitive, upsampling a screen 
 shot in Photoshop (or name whatever tool you like) prior to 
 importing or placing into FrameMaker (or name your favorite 
 layout program) can indeed lead to lossiness. Despite what 
 many print service providers will tell you, all images are 
 resampled at the RIP (whether downsampled or upsampled) to 
 match the combination of the device's actual resolution and 
 the screening algorithms in use. And such resampling is 
 typically of quality comparable to the best you can do in 
 Photoshop. Since resampling is done at the RIP anyway, doing 
 a manual upsampling prior to the RIP process may cause real 
 content in your image to be lost. For screen shots, such data 
 lossiness can yield really crufty results. And such extra 
 resampling prior to the RIP process violates the reliable 
 PDF workflow principles.
 
   - Dov 
 
 
 
 
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: High quality images

[Dov Isaacs]

Matt,

To directly answer your questions:

(a) FrameMaker does NOT send the original compressed
referenced file to the printer driver. It decompresses
the image and sends that decompressed image to the 
driver. Thus, the original compression in the TIFF or
JPEG or whatever matters not. The drive gets a
decompressed image.

(b) InDesign does NOT (and NEVER did) any actual
scaling or rotation of placed content before sending
to either PostScript or PDF. It simply sends a 
transformation matrix that is used by the ultimate
RIP / rendering device to do the scaling, rotation,
etc. itself.

(c) Pasting of screen captures into a page layout
program is not reliable, disciplined workflow. Such
assets should be kept separate as a file.

- Dov
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Matt Sullivan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 3:08 PM
 To: Dov Isaacs; 'Framers List'
 Subject: RE: High quality images
 
 (1) Actually, with multiple 100+ Mb files and poster-sized or 
 larger output, scaling, rotation, cropping and compression 
 take on a whole new meaning.
 When the size of the cache exceeds that of the RAM on the 
 output engine, it's like running Photoshop on 256Mb 
 RAM...everything goes at the speed of the cache disk.
 
 (2) But Frame does send the compressed referenced file to the 
 driver to perform calculations there, yes?
  It's been my understanding that InDesign is the only 
 application that pre-processed scaling, rotation, and 
 cropping before sending to an output device. Is that no 
 longer/not correct?
 I've always understood that all other applications will pass 
 the referenced file to Distiller or the RIP, and that 
 processing occurs there.
 
 Also, did you have an opinion on the pasting of screen 
 captures vs. saving to disk?
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Dov Isaacs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:50 PM
 To: Matt Sullivan; Framers List
 Subject: RE: High quality images
 
 Matt,
 
 Several observations:
 
 (1)   There is something drastically wrong with your
 RIP if it is slowing down when faced with compressed images.
 
 (2)   How an image is compressed in a TIFF file is
 irrelevant in terms of what FrameMaker, the PostScript 
 driver, and if you are using a PDF workflow, what the 
 Distiller and Acrobat's print routines do with the image with 
 regards to compression. Any LZW or ZIP compression in a 
 screen shot (or any other image) imported into FrameMaker is 
 absolutely lost when FrameMaker sends the image data to the 
 PostScript driver!
 
   - Dov
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Matt Sullivan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:45 PM
  To: Dov Isaacs; 'Framers List'
  Subject: RE: High quality images
  
  Dov, one clarification/question regarding your advice for screen 
  shots...
  
  In my commercial printing experience, I found TIFF to be a great 
  option for bitmap files including screen shots.
  However, I always recommended staying away from the ZIP compression 
  option. Though a lossless format, both compression and scaling 
  tended to horribly slow down our RIP process.
  Though not much of an issue for small files, there also isn't much 
  advantage to compressing such small files, either.
  
  In my experience with large full-color CMYK images, the ZIP 
  compression saved roughly 15% of the file size. For that 
 smaller size, 
  the RIP time would often increase by a factor of 4x or 5x. 
 Scaling the 
  image within the application (with the exception of InDesign) would 
  also slow the RIP. In each case, the application passes the 
 processing 
  (decompression, scaling, and rotating) off to the RIP. If we're all 
  saving to PDF  printing the PDF, then most RIP's will 
 hardly hiccup, 
  and given the speed of most PDF generation, it's doubtful you'll be 
  troubled by a (statistically) slower conversion.
  Lesson: Convert to PDF with appropriate settings prior to printing.
  
  Back to scren shots: From my point of view, if saving to PDF the 
  compression is unnecessary, as you can choose to compress in the 
  Distilling process. If sending for commercial print, then the file 
  savings is likely outweighed by additional RIP
  (processing) time.
  
  For screen captures, my clients have the best success 
 simply pasting 
  from SnagIt, or their application of choice. As the files 
 would almost 
  never be modified in a bitmap editor, but simply re-captured, the 
  image on disk is a bit redundant.
  Anyone care to comment on the pro's and con's of simply 
 pasting SCREEN 
  CAPTURES only?
  
  Matt Sullivan
  GRAFIX Training, Inc.
  888/882-2819
  
  
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  rs.com] On Behalf Of Dov Isaacs
  Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 12:48 AM
  To: Sean; framers@lists.frameusers.com
  Subject: RE: High quality images
  
  I must strongly disagree with ANY advice to resample screen 
 shots at 
  any

High quality images

[Dov Isaacs]

Jon,

I just tried this on my notebook system sitting in a hotel
room on a business trip. Did screen shot Alt-PrtSc and pasted
the result into a new document in Photoshop 9 (=CS2).
Flattened the layers and saved as RGB TIFF with profile
embedded and LZW compression (in this case, the profile 
doesn't seem to make any difference, unfortunately). I then
started up FrameMaker 7.2 (updated with all patches available
on Adobe web site), created a new document, and imported the
TIFF file by reference onto a blank page. Worked like a charm.

What program did you create the TIFF file in? EXACTLY what 
options did you use to save the file? 

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Harvey [mailto:JHarvey at cambridgesoft.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:03 AM
> To: Dov Isaacs; Stuart Rogers; Clara Hall
> Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: RE: High quality images
> 
> Dov, 
> 
> I tried this. FrameMake imports the tif as an empty graphic 
> frame with the image file name in it. The image can be 
> activated but only in a graphics program. And, what you see 
> in FM is the same as you get in the PDF. Unless there is 
> something I can't get FM 7.2 on Windows to display the TIF 
> with LZW compression.
> 
> BTW, high quality imaging is an important subject to me since 
> my company creates drawing software. Our images HAVE to look 
> good. What am I missing here?
> 
> Jon Harvey
> Manager, Desktop Documentation
>  
> CambridgeSoft Corporation
> 100 CambridgePark Drive
> Cambridge, MA 02140

High quality images

[Dov Isaacs]

Matt,

Several observations:

(1) There is something drastically wrong with your
RIP if it is slowing down when faced with compressed
images.

(2) How an image is compressed in a TIFF file is
irrelevant in terms of what FrameMaker, the PostScript
driver, and if you are using a PDF workflow, what
the Distiller and Acrobat's print routines do with
the image with regards to compression. Any LZW or ZIP
compression in a screen shot (or any other image)
imported into FrameMaker is absolutely lost when
FrameMaker sends the image data to the PostScript driver!

- Dov

> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Sullivan [mailto:matt at grafixtraining.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:45 PM
> To: Dov Isaacs; 'Framers List'
> Subject: RE: High quality images
> 
> Dov, one clarification/question regarding your advice for 
> screen shots...
> 
> In my commercial printing experience, I found TIFF to be a 
> great option for bitmap files including screen shots. 
> However, I always recommended staying away from the ZIP 
> compression option. Though a "lossless" format, both 
> compression and scaling tended to horribly slow down our RIP process.
> Though not much of an issue for small files, there also isn't 
> much advantage to compressing such small files, either.
> 
> In my experience with large full-color CMYK images, the ZIP 
> compression saved roughly 15% of the file size. For that 
> smaller size, the RIP time would often increase by a factor 
> of 4x or 5x. Scaling the image within the application (with 
> the exception of InDesign) would also slow the RIP. In each 
> case, the application passes the processing (decompression, 
> scaling, and rotating) off to the RIP. If we're all saving to 
> PDF & printing the PDF, then most RIP's will hardly hiccup, 
> and given the speed of most PDF generation, it's doubtful 
> you'll be troubled by a (statistically) slower conversion. 
> Lesson: Convert to PDF with appropriate settings prior to printing.
> 
> Back to scren shots: From my point of view, if saving to PDF 
> the compression is unnecessary, as you can choose to compress 
> in the Distilling process. If sending for commercial print, 
> then the file savings is likely outweighed by additional RIP 
> (processing) time.
> 
> For screen captures, my clients have the best success simply 
> pasting from SnagIt, or their application of choice. As the 
> files would almost never be modified in a bitmap editor, but 
> simply re-captured, the image on disk is a bit redundant. 
> Anyone care to comment on the pro's and con's of simply 
> pasting SCREEN CAPTURES only?
> 
> Matt Sullivan
> GRAFIX Training, Inc.
> 888/882-2819
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: framers-bounces+matt=grafixtraining.com at lists.frameusers.com
> [mailto:framers-bounces+matt=grafixtraining.com at lists.frameuse
> rs.com] On Behalf Of Dov Isaacs
> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 12:48 AM
> To: Sean; framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: RE: High quality images
> 
> I must strongly disagree with ANY advice to resample screen 
> shots at any stage of the workflow prior to the RIP.
> Although this might not be intuitive, upsampling a screen 
> shot in Photoshop (or name whatever tool you like) prior to 
> importing or placing into FrameMaker (or name your favorite 
> layout program) can indeed lead to lossiness. Despite what 
> many print service providers will tell you, all images are 
> resampled at the RIP (whether downsampled or upsampled) to 
> match the combination of the device's actual resolution and 
> the screening algorithms in use. And such resampling is 
> typically of quality comparable to the best you can do in 
> Photoshop. Since resampling is done at the RIP anyway, doing 
> a "manual" upsampling prior to the RIP process may cause real 
> content in your image to be lost. For screen shots, such data 
> lossiness can yield really crufty results. And such extra 
> resampling prior to the RIP process violates the "reliable 
> PDF workflow" principles.
> 
>   - Dov 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: High quality images

[Dov Isaacs]

 

 -Original Message-
 From: Stuart Rogers
 Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:28 AM
 To: Clara Hall
 Cc: framers@lists.frameusers.com
 Subject: Re: High quality images

 Clara Hall wrote:
  Hello everyone,

  We have recently adopted a procedure to yield the highest quality 
  images which includes the following steps:

  1.  Alt-PrintScrn the image into Photoshop
  2.  Save the image as a Photoshop EPS.  Make sure Image
  Interpolation is set.

  This sets a image dictionary key that Adobe PostScript Level 2,
Adobe 
  PostScript 3, Acrobat, and Acrobat Reader use to do very high

  quality image interpolation and/or downsampling appropriate to the 
  device's actual resolution and technology at the time the image is 
  viewed or printed. (Distiller passes this key along from PostScript
or 
  EPS in a PostScript stream into the equivalent PDF image key!)

  3.  Import the resultant EPS file into FM.
 


  This procedure is a bit time consuming and I was wondering if anyone

  has another way, or knows of a script which might be able to do a 
  comparable task.

 The procedure you describe is advocated by Dov Isaacs of 
 Adobe, and his instructions also include selecting Binary 
 encoding and TIFF 8-bit preview. I don't know if the current 
 version of Snag-It, suggested by Art, includes those options. 
  In my somewhat geriatric version of Snag-It, the only 
 setting for EPS is colour-depth.

 But I'm not sure there's a great deal of benefit if you're 
 starting out with screenshots, which are low-res to begin 
 with. Photos and other types of graphics may benefit more 
 from the treatment you describe.

 (If you're monitoring this thread, Dov, can you comment?)

 As far as scripting your current process goes, you can 
 automate at least part of it by using the built-in 
 macro-recording feature in Photoshop (Window  Actions) to 
 open a new RGB window, paste, flatten, save as in folder... etc.

 HTH,

 --
 Stuart Rogers


FWIW,

Yes, in the past I did recommend the EPS route with the image
interpolation flag from Photoshop.

In the meantime, Acrobat and Reader, beginning with versions 6
or 7, do a much better job of displaying and enhancing low 
resolution images (such as those from screen shots) on screen,
making that interpolation flag (available in the workflow
available now only when saving EPS from Photoshop) somewhat
unnecessary. I do not use this anymore. For printing, virtually
every PostScript or PDF RIP / printer that I know of will
adequately handle the images without the interpolation bit on.

As such, my current recommendation for screen shots in FrameMaker
or for that matter, almost any other page layout program, is to
capture the image and save without any resampling as a TIFF file
using the LZW compression option.

- Dov
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: Weird Frame to PDF problem

[Dov Isaacs]

In fact, FrameMaker treats a network drive no
differently than a local drive. It doesn't
and shouldn't need to do anything special when
opening, reading, writing, or closing a file
stored on a drive that isn't local to the actual
execution of FrameMaker. For better or worse, it
relies on the operating system FrameMaker is
running on, the operating system of the system on
which the network drive is attached, and the
system administration of same to make access to
non-local drives.

Problems that are most typically seen relate to
(1) improper permissions set on the files,
directories, or both on the network drives
and (2) incompatibilities between the user's
OS and the network drive's OS, especially when
accessing NetWare-based or various UNIX-based
network shares from Windows.

What exactly do you think FrameMaker should be
doing that it isn't doing now with regards to
such files?

- Dov

 

 -Original Message-
 From: Jeremy H. Griffith
 Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 6:20 PM
 To: Gillian Flato
 Cc: framers@frameusers.com
 Subject: Re: Weird Frame to PDF problem
 
 On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:47:12 -0800, Gillian Flato 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 I am working on a network drive. 
 
 And there you have it.
  
 Does this give anyone any ideas? As we get toward release time, I am
 constantly rebuilding this PDF. This problem is really hosing me up. 
 
 Frame has *never* worked properly with network drives.
 Sad, considering it was born on UNIX, but true.  Work on 
 a local drive, then copy the end result to the network.
 
 -- Jeremy H. Griffith, at Omni Systems Inc.
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: High quality images

[Dov Isaacs]

I must strongly disagree with ANY advice to resample
screen shots at any stage of the workflow prior to the RIP.
Although this might not be intuitive, upsampling a screen
shot in Photoshop (or name whatever tool you like) prior to
importing or placing into FrameMaker (or name your favorite
layout program) can indeed lead to lossiness. Despite what
many print service providers will tell you, all images
are resampled at the RIP (whether downsampled or upsampled)
to match the combination of the device's actual resolution
and the screening algorithms in use. And such resampling is
typically of quality comparable to the best you can do in
Photoshop. Since resampling is done at the RIP anyway,
doing a manual upsampling prior to the RIP process may
cause real content in your image to be lost. For screen shots,
such data lossiness can yield really crufty results. And
such extra resampling prior to the RIP process violates the
reliable PDF workflow principles.

- Dov 


 -Original Message-
 From: Sean
 Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 7:43 PM
 To: framers@lists.frameusers.com
 Subject: Re: High quality images
 
 Checkout Screen Captures 102 here:
 

http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/magazine/technical/screencapgraphicsho
mepage.html
 
 Cheers.
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

High quality images

[Dov Isaacs]

> -Original Message-
> From: Stuart Rogers
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:28 AM
> To: Clara Hall
> Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: Re: High quality images

> Clara Hall wrote:
> > Hello everyone,

> > We have recently adopted a procedure to yield the highest quality 
> > images which includes the following steps:

> > 1.  Alt-PrintScrn the image into Photoshop
> > 2.  Save the image as a "Photoshop EPS".  Make sure "Image
> > Interpolation" is set.

> > This sets a image dictionary key that Adobe PostScript Level 2,
Adobe 
> > PostScript 3, Acrobat, and Acrobat Reader use to do very high

> > quality image interpolation and/or downsampling appropriate to the 
> > device's actual resolution and technology at the time the image is 
> > viewed or printed. (Distiller passes this key along from PostScript
or 
> > EPS in a PostScript stream into the equivalent PDF image key!)

> > 3.  Import the resultant EPS file into FM.



> > This procedure is a bit time consuming and I was wondering if anyone

> > has another way, or knows of a script which might be able to do a 
> > comparable task.

> The procedure you describe is advocated by Dov Isaacs of 
> Adobe, and his instructions also include selecting Binary 
> encoding and TIFF 8-bit preview. I don't know if the current 
> version of Snag-It, suggested by Art, includes those options. 
>  In my somewhat geriatric version of Snag-It, the only 
> setting for EPS is colour-depth.

> But I'm not sure there's a great deal of benefit if you're 
> starting out with screenshots, which are low-res to begin 
> with. Photos and other types of graphics may benefit more 
> from the treatment you describe.

> (If you're monitoring this thread, Dov, can you comment?)

> As far as scripting your current process goes, you can 
> automate at least part of it by using the built-in 
> macro-recording feature in Photoshop (Window > Actions) to 
> open a new RGB window, paste, flatten, save as in folder... etc.

> HTH,

> --
> Stuart Rogers


FWIW,

Yes, in the past I did recommend the EPS route with the image
interpolation flag from Photoshop.

In the meantime, Acrobat and Reader, beginning with versions 6
or 7, do a much better job of displaying and enhancing low 
resolution images (such as those from screen shots) on screen,
making that "interpolation flag" (available in the workflow
available now only when saving EPS from Photoshop) somewhat
unnecessary. I do not use this anymore. For printing, virtually
every PostScript or PDF RIP / printer that I know of will
adequately handle the images without the interpolation bit on.

As such, my current recommendation for screen shots in FrameMaker
or for that matter, almost any other page layout program, is to
capture the image and save without any resampling as a TIFF file
using the LZW compression option.

- Dov

Weird Frame to PDF problem

[Dov Isaacs]

In fact, FrameMaker treats a "network drive" no
differently than a local drive. It doesn't
and shouldn't need to do anything special when
opening, reading, writing, or closing a file
stored on a drive that isn't local to the actual
execution of FrameMaker. For better or worse, it
relies on the operating system FrameMaker is
running on, the operating system of the system on
which the "network drive" is attached, and the
system administration of same to make access to
non-local drives.

Problems that are most typically seen relate to
(1) improper permissions set on the files,
directories, or both on the "network drives"
and (2) incompatibilities between the user's
OS and the network drive's OS, especially when
accessing NetWare-based or various UNIX-based
network shares from Windows.

What exactly do you think FrameMaker should be
doing that it isn't doing now with regards to
such files?

- Dov



> -Original Message-
> From: Jeremy H. Griffith
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 6:20 PM
> To: Gillian Flato
> Cc: framers at frameusers.com
> Subject: Re: Weird Frame to PDF problem
> 
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:47:12 -0800, "Gillian Flato" 
>  wrote:
> 
> >I am working on a network drive. 
> 
> And there you have it.
>  
> >Does this give anyone any ideas? As we get toward release time, I am
> >constantly rebuilding this PDF. This problem is really hosing me up. 
> 
> Frame has *never* worked properly with network drives.
> Sad, considering it was born on UNIX, but true.  Work on 
> a local drive, then copy the end result to the network.
> 
> -- Jeremy H. Griffith, at Omni Systems Inc.
> 

High quality images

[Dov Isaacs]

I must strongly disagree with ANY advice to resample
screen shots at any stage of the workflow prior to the RIP.
Although this might not be intuitive, upsampling a screen
shot in Photoshop (or name whatever tool you like) prior to
importing or placing into FrameMaker (or name your favorite
layout program) can indeed lead to lossiness. Despite what
many print service providers will tell you, all images
are resampled at the RIP (whether downsampled or upsampled)
to match the combination of the device's actual resolution
and the screening algorithms in use. And such resampling is
typically of quality comparable to the best you can do in
Photoshop. Since resampling is done at the RIP anyway,
doing a "manual" upsampling prior to the RIP process may
cause real content in your image to be lost. For screen shots,
such data lossiness can yield really crufty results. And
such extra resampling prior to the RIP process violates the
"reliable PDF workflow" principles.

- Dov 


> -Original Message-
> From: Sean
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 7:43 PM
> To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: Re: High quality images
> 
> Checkout Screen Captures 102 here:
> 
>
http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/magazine/technical/screencapgraphicsho
mepage.html
> 
> Cheers.
> 

FYI: Adobe Releases Major Upgrade to RoboHelp

[Dov Isaacs]

 

 -Original Message-
 From: Adobe Systems Incorporated
 Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 9:04 PM
 Subject: Adobe Releases Major Upgrade to RoboHelp
 
 ( BW)(CA-ADOBE-SYSTEMS)(ADBE) Adobe Releases Major Upgrade to RoboHelp
 
 Adobe RoboHelp 6 Eases Creation, Management and Publishing of
 Intuitive Software Help Systems and Knowledge Bases
 
 Business Editors/High-Tech Editors
 
 SAN JOSE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 16, 2007--Adobe Systems
 Incorporated (Nasdaq:ADBE) today announced Adobe(R) RoboHelp(R) 6, a
 complete, flexible and user-friendly system to create, manage and
 publish software help systems, knowledge bases and documentation for
 desktop and Web-based applications. As a key element of Adobe's
 technical communications product line-up, which includes Adobe
 FrameMaker(R), Adobe Captivate(TM) and Adobe Acrobat(R), RoboHelp 6
 provides all the desktop functionality that authors need to create
 advanced Help content, including table of contents, index, glossary,
 graphics, special effects and context-sensitive Help. Adobe RoboHelp
 Server 6, also introduced today, provides powerful server features
 that ensure the delivery of up-to-date online content, with real-time
 tracking of how end-users engage with the help system that provides
 valuable feedback to Help publishers.
 
 Adobe RoboHelp 6 is a major release and a key milestone in the
 product's 15-year history, said Don Walker, senior director of
 product marketing and business development at Adobe. RoboHelp 6
 strongly reinforces Adobe's commitment to the technical communications
 market, giving authors what they need to easily develop, manage and
 maintain intuitive software help systems and knowledge bases.
 
 RoboHelp has consistently led the market for the past decade,
 providing superior usability and productivity, said Ron Linyard,
 President and CEO of Unwired Software and former VP of Engineering for
 eHelp. The software is compatible with a host of formats and
 leverages the benefits of other Adobe products to give users a richer
 experience than other tools provide.
 
 With this release, Adobe has consolidated the Adobe RoboHelp
 product family into two simple and powerful choices -- Adobe RoboHelp
 6 for authoring and Adobe RoboHelp 6 Server for the delivery of online
 content. Users of RoboHelp 6 also benefit from the integration of
 Adobe Captivate 2 for improved workflow and more engaging content with
 simulations and demonstrations. In addition, users can automate the
 building of their help at a predetermined time using command line
 compilation. Conditional Table of Contents (TOC) allows for greater
 control and customization of table of contents. With User Defined
 Variables, changes can be made just once, but seen everywhere in Help.
 Updated Adobe RoboSource Control provides an unique source document
 and version control system for Windows and Web development for both
 individual users and collaborative teams. Adobe PDF creation generates
 support for hyperlinks  bookmarks and enables accessible PDFs.
 Built-in RoboScreenCapture means users don't need to invest in a
 separate application to create and edit screen shots.
 
 RoboHelp Server 6 extends and supports the capabilities of Adobe
 RoboHelp 6 to provide a complete online Help and Knowledge Base
 solution. Authors can easily deploy and manage up-to-date online
 content, control and monitor the use of Web-based Help systems in real
 time through a new web-based remote interface, and develop Help
 systems for use with the Microsoft .NET Framework. Also, RoboHelp
 Server 6 includes FlashHelp Pro, a server-based version of FlashHelp
 and provides connectivity with Oracle and SQL databases, formerly sold
 separately in the RoboEngine Connectivity Pack.
 
 Adobe RoboHelp 6 gives users more choices to create and publish
 content. Users can import a variety of content created in Microsoft
 Word, Adobe FrameMaker, Adobe PDF, XML and other help projects and
 then publish the content in popular help formats including FlashHelp,
 WebHelp, HTML help, WinHelp, HTML, JavaHelp, OracleHelp for Java and
 even printed documentation output in Adobe PDF and Microsoft Word. The
 customization of content is made easier with conditional text and new
 features like TOC and user defined variables.
 
 Pricing and Availability
 
 RoboHelp 6 and RoboHelp 6 Server are available for purchase today
 for Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Support for Windows Vista will be
 added in 2007. The estimated street price for Adobe RoboHelp 6 is
 US$999 and US$1999 for Adobe RoboHelp 6 Server. Previous users of
 RoboHelp and RoboInfo can upgrade to Adobe RoboHelp 6 and RoboHelp
 Server 6 for an estimated street price of US$499 and US$999,
 respectively. Volume discounts and government and education licensing
 are also available to eligible customers. To learn more about Adobe
 RoboHelp 6 and Adobe RoboHelp Server 6, please visit
 www.adobe.com/go/robohelp. For 

RE: PDF to framemaker

[Dov Isaacs]

You could/should be a bit more specific about what you mean
by Adobe fixing up the RTF to FM filter. If you are finding
bugs, by all means officially report them!

You should be aware that many of the RTF to anything else
conversion issues do relate to inconsistencies between how
Microsoft itself produces and/or interprets RTF in various
versions and releases of Word. Even within a particular version
of Word, you can see discrepancies. Many of these have to do 
with character encodings, especially anything other than
base ASCII characters! This is especially true if you are
copying text from old Word documents from times prior to that
in which Unicode was supported.

- Dov 
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Diane Gaskill
 Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 7:29 PM
 
 Hi all,
 
 Speaking of converters, I was wondering if Adobe might ever 
 consider fixing up the RTF to FM and FM to RTF filters that 
 come with Frame.  Especially the RTF to FM filter.  It would 
 be SO helpful to companies like mine who are about to convert 
 their docsets, including many large manuals (up to 800 pages, 
 believe it or not) from Word to FM.  It would have made the 
 job of convincing management a lot easier to switch to Frame 
 if we didn't have to pay an outside vendor to do this for us.
 
 Seems like it would be a profitable thing to do, considering 
 that more companies would be likely to by Frame if they had 
 an easy way to get there from Word.
 
 Diane
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

PDF to framemaker

[Dov Isaacs]

You could/should be a bit more specific about what you mean
by Adobe "fixing up the RTF to FM filter." If you are finding
bugs, by all means officially report them!

You should be aware that many of the "RTF to anything else"
conversion issues do relate to inconsistencies between how
Microsoft itself produces and/or interprets RTF in various
versions and releases of Word. Even within a particular version
of Word, you can see discrepancies. Many of these have to do 
with character encodings, especially anything other than
base ASCII characters! This is especially true if you are
copying text from old Word documents from times prior to that
in which Unicode was supported.

- Dov 


> -Original Message-
> From: Diane Gaskill
> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 7:29 PM
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Speaking of converters, I was wondering if Adobe might ever 
> consider fixing up the RTF to FM and FM to RTF filters that 
> come with Frame.  Especially the RTF to FM filter.  It would 
> be SO helpful to companies like mine who are about to convert 
> their docsets, including many large manuals (up to 800 pages, 
> believe it or not) from Word to FM.  It would have made the 
> job of convincing management a lot easier to switch to Frame 
> if we didn't have to pay an outside vendor to do this for us.
> 
> Seems like it would be a profitable thing to do, considering 
> that more companies would be likely to by Frame if they had 
> an easy way to get there from Word.
> 
> Diane

FYI: Adobe Releases Major Upgrade to RoboHelp

[Dov Isaacs]

> -Original Message-
> From: Adobe Systems Incorporated
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 9:04 PM
> Subject: Adobe Releases Major Upgrade to RoboHelp
> 
> ( BW)(CA-ADOBE-SYSTEMS)(ADBE) Adobe Releases Major Upgrade to RoboHelp
> 
> Adobe RoboHelp 6 Eases Creation, Management and Publishing of
> Intuitive Software Help Systems and Knowledge Bases
> 
> Business Editors/High-Tech Editors
> 
> SAN JOSE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 16, 2007--Adobe Systems
> Incorporated (Nasdaq:ADBE) today announced Adobe(R) RoboHelp(R) 6, a
> complete, flexible and user-friendly system to create, manage and
> publish software help systems, knowledge bases and documentation for
> desktop and Web-based applications. As a key element of Adobe's
> technical communications product line-up, which includes Adobe
> FrameMaker(R), Adobe Captivate(TM) and Adobe Acrobat(R), RoboHelp 6
> provides all the desktop functionality that authors need to create
> advanced Help content, including table of contents, index, glossary,
> graphics, special effects and context-sensitive Help. Adobe RoboHelp
> Server 6, also introduced today, provides powerful server features
> that ensure the delivery of up-to-date online content, with real-time
> tracking of how end-users engage with the help system that provides
> valuable feedback to Help publishers.
> 
> "Adobe RoboHelp 6 is a major release and a key milestone in the
> product's 15-year history," said Don Walker, senior director of
> product marketing and business development at Adobe. "RoboHelp 6
> strongly reinforces Adobe's commitment to the technical communications
> market, giving authors what they need to easily develop, manage and
> maintain intuitive software help systems and knowledge bases."
> 
> "RoboHelp has consistently led the market for the past decade,
> providing superior usability and productivity," said Ron Linyard,
> President and CEO of Unwired Software and former VP of Engineering for
> eHelp. "The software is compatible with a host of formats and
> leverages the benefits of other Adobe products to give users a richer
> experience than other tools provide."
> 
> With this release, Adobe has consolidated the Adobe RoboHelp
> product family into two simple and powerful choices -- Adobe RoboHelp
> 6 for authoring and Adobe RoboHelp 6 Server for the delivery of online
> content. Users of RoboHelp 6 also benefit from the integration of
> Adobe Captivate 2 for improved workflow and more engaging content with
> simulations and demonstrations. In addition, users can automate the
> building of their help at a predetermined time using command line
> compilation. Conditional Table of Contents (TOC) allows for greater
> control and customization of table of contents. With User Defined
> Variables, changes can be made just once, but seen everywhere in Help.
> Updated Adobe RoboSource Control provides an unique source document
> and version control system for Windows and Web development for both
> individual users and collaborative teams. Adobe PDF creation generates
> support for hyperlinks & bookmarks and enables accessible PDFs.
> Built-in RoboScreenCapture means users don't need to invest in a
> separate application to create and edit screen shots.
> 
> RoboHelp Server 6 extends and supports the capabilities of Adobe
> RoboHelp 6 to provide a complete online Help and Knowledge Base
> solution. Authors can easily deploy and manage up-to-date online
> content, control and monitor the use of Web-based Help systems in real
> time through a new web-based remote interface, and develop Help
> systems for use with the Microsoft .NET Framework. Also, RoboHelp
> Server 6 includes FlashHelp Pro, a server-based version of FlashHelp
> and provides connectivity with Oracle and SQL databases, formerly sold
> separately in the RoboEngine Connectivity Pack.
> 
> Adobe RoboHelp 6 gives users more choices to create and publish
> content. Users can import a variety of content created in Microsoft
> Word, Adobe FrameMaker, Adobe PDF, XML and other help projects and
> then publish the content in popular help formats including FlashHelp,
> WebHelp, HTML help, WinHelp, HTML, JavaHelp, OracleHelp for Java and
> even printed documentation output in Adobe PDF and Microsoft Word. The
> customization of content is made easier with conditional text and new
> features like TOC and user defined variables.
> 
> Pricing and Availability
> 
> RoboHelp 6 and RoboHelp 6 Server are available for purchase today
> for Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Support for Windows Vista will be
> added in 2007. The estimated street price for Adobe RoboHelp 6 is
> US$999 and US$1999 for Adobe RoboHelp 6 Server. Previous users of
> RoboHelp and RoboInfo can upgrade to Adobe RoboHelp 6 and RoboHelp
> Server 6 for an estimated street price of US$499 and US$999,
> respectively. Volume discounts and government and education licensing
> are also available to eligible customers. To learn more about 

RE: PDF to framemaker

[Dov Isaacs]

(1) There are a lot of people within Adobe who 
don't know what Dreamweaver or Contribute are either!

(2) Actually, there is NOT much demand for a PDF to
FrameMaker or even a PDF to InDesign converter at 
least as expressed directly to Adobe. Most users of 
these programs understand the problems of trying to
do such reverse engineering of a PDF file.

PDF is a final form document format. It does not have
the context of the graphical objects it represents.
At best, if you produce a tagged PDF, a converter
can make some guesses as to the original document
structure in terms of sentences, paragraphs, and tables,
but not much more. The Acrobat save-as-RTF capability
as well as the third party products out there try to
make good guesses as the original formatting, but that
is about the best they can do. Very little context of
a FrameMaker or InDesign document remains in the
resultant PDF file, so any attempt to go back to those
formats is somewhat doomed. If we were to supply converters
back to those formats, users expectations would be set
to a level that we could not deliver to.

Conversions from PDF should be viewed as and only be used
for emergency retrieval of content that has no other
means of being retrieved. We provide an RTF converter 
simply because just about every text consuming program out
there can open or import content in RTF and that does satisfy
most of our customer's needs in terms of such emergency
retrieval.

- Dov

 

 -Original Message-
 
 I am sure there are a lot of people within Adobe that don't 
 know what FrameMaker is.
 
 Rick Quatro
 
  It always puzzles me how companies make decisions.  Adobe has
included 
  a function within Acrobat to convert PDF to RTF, the file format of 
  their competitor, but not to FM which is one of their own file 
  formats.  Perhaps there is not enough demand for PDF-FM?
 
  Diane
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

PDF to framemaker

[Dov Isaacs]

(1) There are "a lot of people within Adobe" who 
don't know what Dreamweaver or Contribute are either!

(2) Actually, there is NOT much demand for a PDF to
FrameMaker or even a PDF to InDesign "converter" at 
least as expressed directly to Adobe. Most users of 
these programs understand the problems of trying to
do such reverse engineering of a PDF file.

PDF is a "final form" document format. It does not have
the context of the graphical objects it represents.
At best, if you produce a "tagged" PDF, a "converter"
can make some guesses as to the original document
structure in terms of sentences, paragraphs, and tables,
but not much more. The Acrobat save-as-RTF capability
as well as the third party products out there try to
make good guesses as the original formatting, but that
is about the best they can do. Very little context of
a FrameMaker or InDesign document remains in the
resultant PDF file, so any attempt to go back to those
formats is somewhat doomed. If we were to supply "converters"
back to those formats, users expectations would be set
to a level that we could not deliver to.

Conversions from PDF should be viewed as and only be used
for emergency retrieval of content that has no other
means of being retrieved. We provide an RTF converter 
simply because just about every text consuming program out
there can open or import content in RTF and that does satisfy
most of our customer's needs in terms of such emergency
retrieval.

- Dov



> -Original Message-
> 
> I am sure there are a lot of people within Adobe that don't 
> know what FrameMaker is.
> 
> Rick Quatro
> 
> > It always puzzles me how companies make decisions.  Adobe has
included 
> > a function within Acrobat to convert PDF to RTF, the file format of 
> > their competitor, but not to FM which is one of their own file 
> > formats.  Perhaps there is not enough demand for PDF->FM?
> >
> > Diane

RE: FM cannot find PDF joboptions

[Dov Isaacs]

What your IT guy says is unfortunately irrelevant here.
What really happened was that the Acrobat 8 development team
changed the location for storage of joboptions without
considering its impact on the existing FrameMaker product's
save as PDF feature. The next major version of FrameMaker
will look for joboptions in the same place that Acrobat 8
stores them.

- Dov

 -Original Message-
 From: Brian Wesley Simmons
 Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 12:27 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: FM cannot find PDF joboptions
 
 I wrote earlier about a FM problem finding new joboptions 
 with Acrobat Pro 8.0. In case anyone else runs into this, 
 here's the solution/work-around that a co-worker finally figured out. 
 
 Acrobat said to put the joboptions in C:\Documents and 
 Settings\localuser\Application Data\Adobe\Adobe 
 PDF\Settings. That did not work, nor did placing them in 
 \Program Files\Adobe\Acrobat 8.0\Acrobat\Settings, which is 
 where we found Acrobat had copies of the joboptions.
 
 When we placed the new joboptions in
 C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application 
 Data\Adobe\Adobe PDF\Settings, FrameMaker was immediately 
 able to see the new joboptions.
 
 My IT guy says that the local user settings should override 
 the All Users settings, but in this case they do not. I don't 
 know why it works this way, but I am sure happy FM can 
 finally see the joboptions.
 
 bws
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

FM cannot find PDF joboptions

[Dov Isaacs]

What your IT guy says is unfortunately irrelevant here.
What really happened was that the Acrobat 8 development team
changed the location for storage of joboptions without
considering its impact on the existing FrameMaker product's
"save as PDF" feature. The next major version of FrameMaker
will look for joboptions in the same place that Acrobat 8
stores them.

- Dov

> -Original Message-
> From: Brian Wesley Simmons
> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 12:27 PM
> To: framers at omsys.com
> Subject: RE: FM cannot find PDF joboptions
> 
> I wrote earlier about a FM problem finding new joboptions 
> with Acrobat Pro 8.0. In case anyone else runs into this, 
> here's the solution/work-around that a co-worker finally figured out. 
> 
> Acrobat said to put the joboptions in C:\Documents and 
> Settings\\Application Data\Adobe\Adobe 
> PDF\Settings. That did not work, nor did placing them in 
> \Program Files\Adobe\Acrobat 8.0\Acrobat\Settings, which is 
> where we found Acrobat had copies of the joboptions.
> 
> When we placed the new joboptions in
> C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application 
> Data\Adobe\Adobe PDF\Settings, FrameMaker was immediately 
> able to see the new joboptions.
> 
> My IT guy says that the local user settings should override 
> the All Users settings, but in this case they do not. I don't 
> know why it works this way, but I am sure happy FM can 
> finally see the joboptions.
> 
> bws
> 

RE(~): Acrobat Pro 8.0 and FM 7.2

[Dov Isaacs]

Actually, a "feature" of Acrobat 8 is that the directory
in which the default .joboptions files are stored,
"C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Adobe\Adobe
PDF\Settings"
is indeed protected against changes by the Acrobat 8
installer. Individual user .joboptions files are to be
stored in unprotected directory
"C:\Documents and Settings\\Application Data\Adobe\Adobe
PDF\Settings"
where "" is your Windows user id.

- Dov

> -Original Message-
> From: Susan Modlin [mailto:smodlin at yahoo.com] 
> Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 6:37 PM
> To: Dov Isaacs; framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: Re: Acrobat Pro 8.0 and FM 7.2
> 
> Thanks to all who responded. Turns out the FILE: port was the 
> culprit. Interestingly enough, I'm having some problems with 
> write-protection in some of the assorted locations for 
> joboptions files. Something to work through the next time I 
> have spare cycles. 
>  
> ...Susan
> 
> 
> Susan Frahm Modlin
> Publications Consulting

RE: Acrobat Pro 8.0 and FM 7.2

[Dov Isaacs]

In reality, it should not make any difference what order you
install Acrobat and FrameMaker with one caveat. If you are
installing the full Acrobat product (which you are), you must
NOT install the copy of Distiller bundled with FrameMaker.
If you have already installed that bundled Distiller, you
must totally uninstall it (and any other versions of Acrobat
and/or Reader on your system) prior to installing Acrobat 8.
If you are prompted to reboot your system after any uninstalls
or after installing Acrobat 8, be sure to do so. The installation
process depends on your doing that reboot immediately.

Although this has not been a problem in recent versions of
Acrobat, per the suggestion of another poster, you should make 
sure that the FILE: port is not missing from your system.

To further complicate things, Acrobat 8 changed the location where 
.joboptions files are stored. Acrobat 7 stored the .joboptions files
at C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Documents\Adobe PDF\Settings.
That is where FrameMaker looks for them. Acrobat 8 (actually 
Distiller 8) stores the bundled .joboptions files in 
C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Adobe\Adobe
PDF\Settings
and each user's personalized .joboption files in
C:\Documents and Settings\\Application Data\Adobe\Adobe
PDF\Settings
where  is your Windows user id.
For FrameMaker 7.2 to work directly with Distiller 8 with the 
save as feature, you must make sure that FrameMaker 7.2 sees
all your joboptions in
C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Documents\Adobe PDF\Settings.

- Dov


 -Original Message-
 From: Susan Modlin
 Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 1:58 PM
 To: framers@lists.frameusers.com
 Subject: Acrobat Pro 8.0 and FM 7.2
 
 Hi, folks. 
  
 I've recently upgraded to FM 7.2 and Acrobat Pro 8 (in that 
 order) and my Save as PDF function has gone missing. The 
 dialog box comes us and I choose all my options, but nothing 
 happens. No PDF, no nothing. I remember that there was a 
 right order in which to install, but I've forgotten what it 
 is (and the archives are next to impossible to search). 
 Apologies if this has already been beaten to death.
  
 I'm running Windows XP Pro, SP2, and patched/updated FM to 
 7.2p158 after I installed Acrobat. There are no other Acrobat 
 versions on the machine. 
  
 Thanks.
  
 ...Susan
 
 .
 .Susan Frahm Modlin
 .Publications Consulting
 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Acrobat Pro 8.0 and FM 7.2

[Dov Isaacs]

In reality, it should not make any difference what order you
install Acrobat and FrameMaker with one caveat. If you are
installing the full Acrobat product (which you are), you must
NOT install the copy of Distiller bundled with FrameMaker.
If you have already installed that bundled Distiller, you
must totally uninstall it (and any other versions of Acrobat
and/or Reader on your system) prior to installing Acrobat 8.
If you are prompted to reboot your system after any uninstalls
or after installing Acrobat 8, be sure to do so. The installation
process depends on your doing that reboot immediately.

Although this has not been a problem in recent versions of
Acrobat, per the suggestion of another poster, you should make 
sure that the FILE: port is not missing from your system.

To further complicate things, Acrobat 8 changed the location where 
.joboptions files are stored. Acrobat 7 stored the .joboptions files
at "C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Documents\Adobe PDF\Settings".
That is where FrameMaker looks for them. Acrobat 8 (actually 
Distiller 8) stores the bundled .joboptions files in 
"C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Adobe\Adobe
PDF\Settings"
and each user's personalized .joboption files in
"C:\Documents and Settings\\Application Data\Adobe\Adobe
PDF\Settings"
where "" is your Windows user id.
For FrameMaker 7.2 to work directly with Distiller 8 with the 
"save as" feature, you must make sure that FrameMaker 7.2 "sees"
all your joboptions in
"C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Documents\Adobe PDF\Settings".

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: Susan Modlin
> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 1:58 PM
> To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: Acrobat Pro 8.0 and FM 7.2
> 
> Hi, folks. 
>  
> I've recently upgraded to FM 7.2 and Acrobat Pro 8 (in that 
> order) and my Save as PDF function has gone missing. The 
> dialog box comes us and I choose all my options, but nothing 
> happens. No PDF, no nothing. I remember that there was a 
> right order in which to install, but I've forgotten what it 
> is (and the archives are next to impossible to search). 
> Apologies if this has already been beaten to death.
>  
> I'm running Windows XP Pro, SP2, and patched/updated FM to 
> 7.2p158 after I installed Acrobat. There are no other Acrobat 
> versions on the machine. 
>  
> Thanks.
>  
> ...Susan
> 
> .
> .Susan Frahm Modlin
> .Publications Consulting
> 
> .smodlin at yahoo.com
> 

RE: Recommended version of Acrobat for FM 7.1

[Dov Isaacs]

In theory, there should be no reason why Acrobat 5 
(hopefully updated to Acrobat 5.0.5 - get the update on
Adobe's web site at
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=1platform=W
indows)
should not work directly with Acrobat 5 unless you are using
the save as PDF feature.

I know of no Acrobat error messages that have numbers such
as 122 -- anything else in the error message? Any other 
software that you are using in conjunction with both
FrameMaker and Acrobat (plug-ins, etc.)?

Did you try simply rebooting your system and running Acrobat
on that document again?

- Dov

 

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 2:00 PM
 To: Framers
 Subject: Recommended version of Acrobat for FM 7.1
 
 I've been getting away with using Acrobat 5.0 with FrameMaker 
 7.1 (Windows XP Pro) for some time now, but it looks like my 
 luck has finally run out.
 
 I installed Acrobat 5.0 and FrameMaker 7.1 on a new computer 
 (Windows XP Media Edition) and all appeared to be working 
 fine until I opened the first PDF distilled on this new machine. 
 
 It's a 200 page document and the 3rd page does not display 
 properly (something about error 122). I tried distilling the 
 offending page separately and replacing the problem page. I 
 also tried distilling and replacing the offending file (the 
 TOC) . Finally I tried just deleting the offending page. But 
 in every case the file refuses to Save. When I try, I get a 
 progress bar that goes to about 80% before an error message 
 pops up, referring again to error 122.
 
 So, assuming that my problem is related to mis-matched 
 versions of Acrobat and FrameMaker, I'm wondering what 
 version of Acrobat to purchase.  Assuming the latest version 
 is not the best match for the version of Frame I've got, 
 where can I purchase it?
 
 On the other hand if you've seen a less expensive fix to this 
 kind of problem, please point me in the direction. Id much 
 prefer spending the $$ on Christmas.
 
 Thanks for your input.
 
 Sincerely,
 --
 J. Paul Kent
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Recommended version of Acrobat for FM 7.1

[Dov Isaacs]

In theory, there should be no reason why Acrobat 5 
(hopefully updated to Acrobat 5.0.5 - get the update on
Adobe's web site at
)
should not work directly with Acrobat 5 unless you are using
the "save as PDF" feature.

I know of no Acrobat error messages that have numbers such
as "122" -- anything else in the error message? Any other 
software that you are using in conjunction with both
FrameMaker and Acrobat (plug-ins, etc.)?

Did you try simply rebooting your system and running Acrobat
on that document again?

- Dov



> -Original Message-
> From: jopakent at comcast.net
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 2:00 PM
> To: Framers
> Subject: Recommended version of Acrobat for FM 7.1
> 
> I've been getting away with using Acrobat 5.0 with FrameMaker 
> 7.1 (Windows XP Pro) for some time now, but it looks like my 
> luck has finally run out.
> 
> I installed Acrobat 5.0 and FrameMaker 7.1 on a new computer 
> (Windows XP Media Edition) and all appeared to be working 
> fine until I opened the first PDF distilled on this new machine. 
> 
> It's a 200 page document and the 3rd page does not display 
> properly (something about error 122). I tried distilling the 
> offending page separately and replacing the problem page. I 
> also tried distilling and replacing the offending file (the 
> TOC) . Finally I tried just deleting the offending page. But 
> in every case the file refuses to Save. When I try, I get a 
> progress bar that goes to about 80% before an error message 
> pops up, referring again to error 122.
> 
> So, assuming that my problem is related to mis-matched 
> versions of Acrobat and FrameMaker, I'm wondering what 
> version of Acrobat to purchase.  Assuming the latest version 
> is not the best match for the version of Frame I've got, 
> where can I purchase it?
> 
> On the other hand if you've seen a less expensive fix to this 
> kind of problem, please point me in the direction. I"d much 
> prefer spending the $$ on Christmas.
> 
> Thanks for your input.
> 
> Sincerely,
> --
> J. Paul Kent
> 

RE: Greyscale

[Dov Isaacs]

Please repeat after me ...

Adobe Illustrator is NOT, repeat NOT, repeat yet
again NOT a general purpose PDF editor.

Adobe Illustrator only understands a subset of PDF,
the subset that corresponds to the objects, modes, and
options of Illustrator. The only PDF file that is safe
to open in Adobe Illustrator is a PDF file saved in
that version (or earlier) version of Illustrator using
the save editabilty option. Opening any other PDF
file subjects that file to loss of and changes to 
content.

Don't do it! It is not recommended or supported by
Adobe in any way, shape, or form. Use Acrobat 7 Pro
or Acrobat 8 Pro to do such color conversions.

- Dov
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Madeleine Reardon Dimond
 Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:14 PM
 To: framers@lists.frameusers.com
 Subject: RE: Greyscale
 
 Dov wrote:
 Yes, I am definitely referring to EPS or PDF files
 imported into FrameMaker.
 
 There is no convert to grayscale option in
 Distiller.
 
 I've been faced with the problem of converting color
 to greyscale in a document full of pdf imports. The
 only way I've found so far to deal with it was to take
 the pdf graphics through Illustrator, strip the color
 there, and re-pdf them. Is this process recommended or
 advisable?
 
 Madeleine Reardon Dimond
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Greyscale

[Dov Isaacs]

Please repeat after me ...

Adobe Illustrator is NOT, repeat NOT, repeat yet
again NOT a general purpose PDF editor.

Adobe Illustrator only "understands" a subset of PDF,
the subset that corresponds to the objects, modes, and
options of Illustrator. The only PDF file that is "safe"
to open in Adobe Illustrator is a PDF file saved in
that version (or earlier) version of Illustrator using
the "save editabilty" option. Opening any other PDF
file subjects that file to loss of and changes to 
content.

Don't do it! It is not recommended or supported by
Adobe in any way, shape, or form. Use Acrobat 7 Pro
or Acrobat 8 Pro to do such color conversions.

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: Madeleine Reardon Dimond
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:14 PM
> To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: RE: Greyscale
> 
> Dov wrote:
> < imported into FrameMaker.
> 
> There is no "convert to grayscale" option in
> Distiller.>>
> 
> I've been faced with the problem of converting color
> to greyscale in a document full of pdf imports. The
> only way I've found so far to deal with it was to take
> the pdf graphics through Illustrator, strip the color
> there, and re-pdf them. Is this process recommended or
> advisable?
> 
> Madeleine Reardon Dimond

RE: Greyscale

[Dov Isaacs]

Yes, I am definitely referring to EPS or PDF files
imported into FrameMaker.

There is no convert to grayscale option in Distiller.

What SPECIFICALLY is the printer complaining about in
terms of quality. Send me a sample of what he doesn't
think is high enough quality if you can and have the time.
Let me evaluate it.

- Dov
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Ben Warburton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 4:03 PM
 To: Dov Isaacs
 Cc: framers@lists.frameusers.com
 Subject: RE: Greyscale
 
 Many thanks for your advice Dov. We are using Acro 7 now. 
 Bedded it down almost a year ago now. We always send our 
 printers press quality PDFs in full colour and we've never 
 had any problems. However, we're recently changed printers 
 who are requesting grayscale PDFs. When you say as long as 
 NONE of your content is EPS or PDF containing color, are you 
 talking about embedded files in FrameMaker? If so, no 
 problem. Except that the printer is now complaining about 
 graphics quality. But I searched hi and lo in the Acro 
 Distiller Color options and found no option to convert to 
 grayscale. Does such an option exist?
 
 Regards
 Ben Warburton
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Greyscale

[Dov Isaacs]

Yes, I am definitely referring to EPS or PDF files
imported into FrameMaker.

There is no "convert to grayscale" option in Distiller.

What SPECIFICALLY is the printer complaining about in
terms of quality. Send me a sample of what he doesn't
think is high enough quality if you can and have the time.
Let me evaluate it.

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Warburton [mailto:bwarburton at wilcom.com.au] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 4:03 PM
> To: Dov Isaacs
> Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: RE: Greyscale
> 
> Many thanks for your advice Dov. We are using Acro 7 now. 
> Bedded it down almost a year ago now. We always send our 
> printers "press quality" PDFs in full colour and we've never 
> had any problems. However, we're recently changed printers 
> who are requesting grayscale PDFs. When you say "as long as 
> NONE of your content is EPS or PDF containing color", are you 
> talking about embedded files in FrameMaker? If so, no 
> problem. Except that the printer is now complaining about 
> graphics quality. But I searched hi and lo in the Acro 
> Distiller Color options and found no option to convert to 
> grayscale. Does such an option exist?
> 
> Regards
> Ben Warburton

RE: Grayscale PDFs

[Dov Isaacs]

Steve,

I think that you are confusing two separate facilities,
the Ink Manager and the Convert Colors facility.

The Ink Manager can be used to alias spot colors and/or
to cause spot colors to be printed as process. Given that
FrameMaker Windows has no ability to natively output
spot colors :-(  the Ink Manager is somewhat useless with
regards to FrameMaker output. And yes, settings done with
the Ink Manager for a PDF file are not persistent (they
don't stay with the PDF file if it is saved). They
exist only as long as the PDF file is open.

The Convert Colors facility is a totally separate beast.
It allows colors to be actually changed such as RGB to
CMYK using ICC profiles (not the dumb PostScript RGB to
CMYK conversion) or RGB (or CMYK) to grayscale. The changes
made with this facility are preserved if you then save
the PDF file.

Adobe UK Support either didn't understand what you were
trying to find out or gave you the wrong answer or both.
Sorry!

- Dov

 

 -Original Message-
 From: Steve Rickaby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:54 AM
 To: Dov Isaacs
 Cc: framers@FrameUsers.com
 Subject: RE: Grayscale PDFs
 
 At 12:22 -0800 27/11/06, Dov Isaacs wrote:
 
 A more inclusive fix would be to not use the driver option 
 but to use the color conversion features of Acrobat 7 Pro or 
 Acrobat 8 Pro.
 
 This is topical, as I've just trialled 8 Pro for a very 
 similar reason.
 
 It is my understanding that some 'advanced' features such as 
 ink aliasing work only for print/press/RIP output from 
 Acrobat 8 Pro: that is, they cannot be used to edit a PDF so 
 that colors are permanently remapped. Adobe UK support 
 confirmed this. However, I'm still slightly surprised, as it 
 means that the features are only of use to print shops, and 
 not to, say, those who supply pre-press PDFs.
 
 Perhaps Dov could confirm this?
 
 -- 
 Steve
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Grayscale PDFs

[Dov Isaacs]

Steve,

I think that you are confusing two separate facilities,
the "Ink Manager" and the "Convert Colors" facility.

The "Ink Manager" can be used to alias spot colors and/or
to cause spot colors to be printed as process. Given that
FrameMaker Windows has no ability to natively output
spot colors :-(  the Ink Manager is somewhat useless with
regards to FrameMaker output. And yes, settings done with
the Ink Manager for a PDF file are not persistent (they
don't "stay" with the PDF file if it is saved). They
exist only as long as the PDF file is open.

The "Convert Colors" facility is a totally separate beast.
It allows colors to be actually changed such as RGB to
CMYK using ICC profiles (not the dumb PostScript RGB to
CMYK conversion) or RGB (or CMYK) to grayscale. The changes
made with this facility are preserved if you then save
the PDF file.

"Adobe UK Support" either didn't understand what you were
trying to find out or gave you the wrong answer or both.
Sorry!

- Dov



> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Rickaby [mailto:srickaby at wordmongers.demon.co.uk] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:54 AM
> To: Dov Isaacs
> Cc: framers at FrameUsers.com
> Subject: RE: Grayscale PDFs
> 
> At 12:22 -0800 27/11/06, Dov Isaacs wrote:
> 
> >A more inclusive "fix" would be to not use the driver option 
> but to use the color conversion features of Acrobat 7 Pro or 
> Acrobat 8 Pro.
> 
> This is topical, as I've just trialled 8 Pro for a very 
> similar reason.
> 
> It is my understanding that some 'advanced' features such as 
> ink aliasing work only for print/press/RIP output from 
> Acrobat 8 Pro: that is, they cannot be used to edit a PDF so 
> that colors are permanently remapped. Adobe UK support 
> confirmed this. However, I'm still slightly surprised, as it 
> means that the features are only of use to print shops, and 
> not to, say, those who supply pre-press PDFs.
> 
> Perhaps Dov could confirm this?
> 
> -- 
> Steve
> 

RE: Grayscale PDFs

[Dov Isaacs]

Ben,

The methodology that you are using works as long
as NONE of your content is EPS or PDF containing color.
That driver option does not do anything to content that
passes through the driver. EPS and PDF (which is 
actually converted to the equivalent of EPS for output
PostScript streams) is not touched by the driver in
terms of this black and white option.

A more inclusive fix would be to not use the driver
option but to use the color conversion features of
Acrobat 7 Pro or Acrobat 8 Pro.

- Dov
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Ben Warburton
 Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 4:46 PM
 To: framers@lists.frameusers.com
 Subject: Grayscale PDFs
 
 Hello Framers
 
 Our company has just changed printers and I have received a 
 request for grayscale print-ready PDFs rather than the full 
 colour PDFs we have always delivered (the Adobe recommended 
 method of producing PDFs for sending to commercial printers). 
 To generate grayscale, we used the Properties  General Tab  
 Printing Preferences  Paper Quality tab  Color = Black  
 White option. The resulting PDF was less than two-thirds the 
 size of the original colour version. My question to the list 
 is, what kind of impact if any is this likely to have on the 
 print quality?
 
 Regards
 
 Ben Warburton
 Documentation  Training Manager 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Grayscale PDFs

[Dov Isaacs]

Ben,

The methodology that you are using "works" as long
as NONE of your content is EPS or PDF containing color.
That driver option does not do anything to content that
passes "through" the driver. EPS and PDF (which is 
actually converted to the equivalent of EPS for output
PostScript streams) is not touched by the driver in
terms of this "black and white" option.

A more inclusive "fix" would be to not use the driver
option but to use the color conversion features of
Acrobat 7 Pro or Acrobat 8 Pro.

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Warburton
> Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 4:46 PM
> To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: Grayscale PDFs
> 
> Hello Framers
> 
> Our company has just changed printers and I have received a 
> request for grayscale print-ready PDFs rather than the full 
> colour PDFs we have always delivered (the Adobe recommended 
> method of producing PDFs for sending to commercial printers). 
> To generate grayscale, we used the Properties > General Tab > 
> Printing Preferences > Paper Quality tab > Color = Black & 
> White option. The resulting PDF was less than two-thirds the 
> size of the original colour version. My question to the list 
> is, what kind of impact if any is this likely to have on the 
> print quality?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Ben Warburton
> Documentation & Training Manager 

Acro 7 Pro dies without warning

[Dov Isaacs]

Quite frankly, this doesn't sound like any symptom
that we are aware of. Although Acrobat does indeed
work with various antivirus programs, perhaps you
can advise as to what antivirus programs, firewalls,
anti-adware etc. programs you may have running and
whether temporarily disabling same solves the problem.
Acrobat 7 does check for on-line updates at start-up
and perhaps something you have installed is killing
the process for doing so?!?!?

- Dov 

> -Original Message-
> From: John Pitt
> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:11 AM
> To: mark.poston at mekon.com
> Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: Re: Acro 7 Pro dies without warning
> 
> Mark,
> 
> I wasn't absolutely certain that I had followed the correct 
> procedure as you outlined -- so I reinstalled, and checked 
> for rogue traces of old installations, etc., again.
> 
> But it is the same story. On my home login, Acrobat dies 
> about 60 seconds after opening; at the only client site I 
> have visited since being afflicted, it is about 10 seconds.
> 
> Distiller works fine -- but I can't do anything to my PDFs 
> once they are made. And I bought 7 so I could take advantage 
> of its ability to compile referees' reports, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> jjj

RE: FM to Distiller font problems

[Dov Isaacs]

Rene,

Unfortunately, without seeing the font file itself, it
would be very difficult to know how or why this problem
is occurring.

I will assume that this Bullets3 font is in fact technically
(if not legally) embeddable (that the fsType field in the 
OS/2 table of the TrueType font is set for either no 
embedding restrictions, edittable embedding, or preview 
and print embedding).

In terms of whether Distiller sees the font, the issue may
be as to where you let Windows install the font. If the font
was NOT copied to C:\WINDOWS\FONTS during installation (i.e.,
you used the don't copy font option of the Windows font
installer), you may need to go into Distiller and manually
add the path of the directory containing the Bullets3
font. A temporary workaround might be to reconfigure the
AdobePDF PostScript printer driver instance such that 
the option to not embed fonts in the PostScript is NOT
checked. To do this, go to the AdobePDF Properties and
in the General tab, click on Printing Preferences and
go to the Adobe PDF Settings tab. There, disable the
option for NOT putting fonts in the print stream. You
would also need to repeat this in the Properties
Advanced tab, clicking on Printing Defaults and similarly
fixing that setting under its Adobe PDF Settings tab.

- Dov
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Rene S.
 Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 3:13 PM
 To: 'framers List'
 Subject: FM to Distiller font problems
 
 Hi All,
 
 I have a font (Bullets3.ttf) that is *not* restricted for 
 embedding and that is licensed to us that won't embed. We're 
 using FM 7.2 on Win XP (SP2) w/ Acrobat 7.0.8. The Bullets3 
 font doesn't even show in the list of fonts to embed in any 
 Distiller dialog boxes on any of the PCs, even though all of 
 them installed the font via Windows Control Panel  Fonts, 
 FileAdd new font.
 
 This is creating problems with the way our safety notices 
 display, showing a-tilde (which I think is the extended ASCII 
 character in the standard set) rather than the desired 
 graphic from the Bullets3 font.
 
 Any insight would be greatly appreciated!
 
 Thanks,
 Rene
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

FM to Distiller font problems

[Dov Isaacs]

Rene,

Unfortunately, without seeing the font file itself, it
would be very difficult to know how or why this problem
is occurring.

I will assume that this "Bullets3" font is in fact technically
(if not legally) embeddable (that the "fsType" field in the 
OS/2 table of the TrueType font is set for either "no 
embedding restrictions", "edittable embedding", or "preview 
and print embedding).

In terms of whether Distiller "sees" the font, the issue may
be as to where you let Windows install the font. If the font
was NOT copied to C:\WINDOWS\FONTS during installation (i.e.,
you used the "don't copy font" option of the Windows font
installer), you may need to go into Distiller and manually
add the path of the directory containing the "Bullets3"
font. A temporary workaround might be to reconfigure the
AdobePDF PostScript printer driver instance such that 
the option to "not embed fonts in the PostScript" is NOT
checked. To do this, go to the AdobePDF Properties and
in the General tab, click on Printing Preferences and
go to the Adobe PDF Settings tab. There, disable the
option for NOT putting fonts in the print stream. You
would also need to repeat this in the Properties
Advanced tab, clicking on Printing Defaults and similarly
fixing that setting under its Adobe PDF Settings tab.

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: Rene S.
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 3:13 PM
> To: 'framers List'
> Subject: FM to Distiller font problems
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I have a font (Bullets3.ttf) that is *not* restricted for 
> embedding and that is licensed to us that won't embed. We're 
> using FM 7.2 on Win XP (SP2) w/ Acrobat 7.0.8. The Bullets3 
> font doesn't even show in the list of fonts to embed in any 
> Distiller dialog boxes on any of the PCs, even though all of 
> them installed the font via Windows Control Panel > Fonts, 
> File>Add new font.
> 
> This is creating problems with the way our safety notices 
> display, showing a-tilde (which I think is the extended ASCII 
> character in the standard set) rather than the desired 
> graphic from the Bullets3 font.
> 
> Any insight would be greatly appreciated!
> 
> Thanks,
> Rene

Is Acrobat Professional 8 shipping?

[Dov Isaacs]

Acrobat 8 has been shipping for at least a week.
At this point, I wouldn't knowingly buy Acrobat 7.

- Dov 

> -Original Message-
> From: cseal at sympatico.ca
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 6:44 AM
> To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: OT: Is Acrobat Professional 8 shipping?
> 
> My employer's supplier says that Acrobat Professional 8 is 
> not shipping yet (as of 20 Nov). Is this true? I've had an 
> order in since October.
> 
> I'm told I have to buy and install 7 and update it to 8 when 
> that becomes available!
> 
> Regards...Chris

Arabic in Frame

[Dov Isaacs]

Simply stated, FrameMaker does not support Arabic or
any other "right-to-left" language including Hebrew
and Farsi. Although one can coerce Windows and 
FrameMaker to access Hebrew characters of Unicode fonts
via various hacks, FrameMaker simply does not support
the entry of text from right to left or mixing of 
right to left with left to right. Support for these
languages also requires support for extended ligatures,
contextual alternates, etc. which is not available in
FrameMaker.

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: Alison Carrico
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 9:54 AM
> To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: Arabic in Frame
> 
> I'm new to the list, so please excuse and correct any 
> etiquette blunders...
> 
> I have been trying for days to figure out how to get Arabic 
> to work in Frame.  We have a client who "has been told" that 
> it is possible, but can't give any specific info.  I have 
> found references on-line and on this list indicating that it 
> is possible, but again, not enough info for me to duplicate.
> 
> I have tried changing the regional settings on my English OS. 
> I have tried using Frame on our Arabic OS. I have tried every 
> way I can think of to import text, every possible way to 
> paste text, various fonts, etc.
> The only method that results in Arabic text rather than junk 
> characters is RTF, but the punctuation is not oriented 
> correctly and some of the letters get bizarrely stretched out.  
> 
> The only way I have succeeded in getting Arabic text to 
> display properly in Frame is through embedded Word OLE 
> objects or Illustrator graphics.
> But neither method is very good as the text does not flow or 
> run-around the graphics.
> 
> I'm way frustrated and feeling very Seuss-ian: "I cannot do 
> it in a boat. I cannot do it with a goat. I do not mean to 
> whinge and whine, but why can't we use InDesign?!?"
> 
> Can any kind soul offer guidance?
> 

Weird PDF problem

[Dov Isaacs]

My gut feel is that these EPS files with Arial created
by CorelDRAW are not quite kosher in terms of what is
embedded as a font. Check your EPS save options and
make sure that CorelDRAW is not converting the TrueType
Arial font to an unhinted Type 1 font. 

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: David Boss
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:54 AM
> To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: Weird PDF problem
> 
> I am having a strange problem with PDF files with EPS 
> graphics that contain the Arial font. When you look at the 
> graphics in the PDF at normal size, in all instances the 
> letter "l" appears much wider than the rest of the letters so 
> the text looks very odd. If you start zooming in, by 400% 
> they only look slightly heavier and by 800% they look normal. 
> There's no problem with printed pages, so I assume it's only 
> a display problem. And If I change the font the problem 
> disappears (unfortunately I have a book with about 40 
> complicated graphics so changing fonts is not a viable option). 
> 
> I verified the problem in Acrobat 7 Professional and Acrobat 
> Reader 7 on my computer and using Reader 7 on another system. 
> On a third system with Reader
> 5 the text appeared OK although not as clear, but when I 
> installed Reader 7 it too showed the same problem. And it 
> doesn't matter how the PDF files are generated -- FrameMaker, 
> PageMaker, save as PDF, print to Adobe PDF, etc.
> and whether text is saved as text or curves in the EPS file 
> when exporting from Corel Draw.
> 
> All systems are running Windows XP SP2 and have different 
> graphics cards.
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Thanks,
> David Boss

RE: Acrobatlateral thinking : Implement simultaneous multiplereleases [was RE: Adobe Acrobat Reader 8.0]

[Dov Isaacs]

Your insinuation that I give my advice wrt/ multiple
versions of Acrobat installed in parallel as an attempt
to coerce everyone to keep up with the latest offering
is highly insulting and couldn't be farther from the
truth!

- Dov 

 

 -Original Message-
 From: Charles Beck
 Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 5:23 AM
 To: framers@lists.frameusers.com
 Subject: RE: Acrobatlateral thinking : Implement simultaneous 
 multiplereleases [was RE: Adobe Acrobat Reader 8.0]
 
 FWIW, what you say should work for Acrobat does work for me 
 now. I have been using this approach for a number of years 
 without any apparent problem. I keep hearing that others have 
 problems, but I have no idea specifically what they are--and 
 in any case, I apparently do not. 
 
 Is it possible that all the hullaballoo is just Adobe's 
 attempt to coerce everyone to keep up with the latest 
 offering, so they do not have to continue to support older 
 versions any longer than absolutely necessary?
 
 Just wondering...
 Chuck
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?

[Dov Isaacs]

My experience is that for FrameMaker, the graphics card
is of relatively low significane for performance issues.

I would endorse Richard's suggestions wrt/ memory and 
disk. A full boat of real memory and high speed disk
(at least 7200 RPM if not higher) will make the most
difference for long, complex FrameMaker documents.

- Dov

 

 -Original Message-
 From: Combs, Richard
 Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 9:12 AM
 To: James Dyson; framers@lists.frameusers.com
 Subject: RE: Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
 
 James Dyson wrote: 
  
  Has anyone noticeably improved the rate at which graphics are 
  loaded in Frame while running on a PC when they upgraded 
  their graphics card? We are considering doing so here, and I 
  suspect it will make a vast improvement. Our PCs are pretty 
  current. I don't want to get lost in the details of hardware 
  configurations etc., but was wondering if anyone had any 
  success in alleviating the problem
 
 I suspect there'd be no noticeable improvement. (I assume your PC
 currently has a reasonably recent video card, not just an
 on-the-motherboard graphics chip that shares system memory.) 
 
 John asked the first key question -- are the graphics on a network
 server? 
 
 Assuming they're on your PC, how much RAM does it have? More RAM would
 almost certainly make far more difference than a faster graphics card.
 You should have at least a gigabyte. If you have lots of 
 large graphics,
 adding a second gig would be worthwhile. 
 
 A very slow hard drive could also be a factor, but that's 
 unlikely with
 a reasonably current PC (you do defrag regularly, right?). 
 
 HTH!
 Richard
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?

[Dov Isaacs]

Further update ... If you are access data from a server,
make sure that the server likewise is amply endowed with
memory and high speed disk. Furthermore, if you don't have
it already, gigabit Ethernet can make a tremendous difference
in this application (even over 100BaseT 100 megabit Ethernet)!

- Dov 

 -Original Message-
 From: Dov Isaacs
 Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 12:51 PM
 To: Combs, Richard; James Dyson; framers@lists.frameusers.com
 Subject: RE: Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
 
 My experience is that for FrameMaker, the graphics card
 is of relatively low significane for performance issues.
 
 I would endorse Richard's suggestions wrt/ memory and 
 disk. A full boat of real memory and high speed disk
 (at least 7200 RPM if not higher) will make the most
 difference for long, complex FrameMaker documents.
 
   - Dov
 
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Acrobatlateral thinking : Implement simultaneous multiplereleases [was "RE: Adobe Acrobat Reader 8.0"]

[Dov Isaacs]

Your insinuation that I give my advice wrt/ multiple
versions of Acrobat installed in parallel as an "attempt
to coerce everyone to keep up with the latest offering"
is highly insulting and couldn't be farther from the
truth!

- Dov 



> -Original Message-
> From: Charles Beck
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 5:23 AM
> To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: RE: Acrobatlateral thinking : Implement simultaneous 
> multiplereleases [was "RE: Adobe Acrobat Reader 8.0"]
> 
> FWIW, what you say should work for Acrobat does work for me 
> now. I have been using this approach for a number of years 
> without any apparent problem. I keep hearing that others have 
> problems, but I have no idea specifically what they are--and 
> in any case, I apparently do not. 
> 
> Is it possible that all the hullaballoo is just Adobe's 
> attempt to coerce everyone to keep up with the latest 
> offering, so they do not have to continue to support older 
> versions any longer than absolutely necessary?
> 
> Just wondering...
> Chuck

Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?

[Dov Isaacs]

My experience is that for FrameMaker, the graphics card
is of relatively low significane for performance issues.

I would endorse Richard's suggestions wrt/ memory and 
disk. A full boat of real memory and high speed disk
(at least 7200 RPM if not higher) will make the most
difference for long, complex FrameMaker documents.

- Dov



> -Original Message-
> From: Combs, Richard
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 9:12 AM
> To: James Dyson; framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: RE: Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
> 
> James Dyson wrote: 
>  
> > Has anyone noticeably improved the rate at which graphics are 
> > loaded in Frame while running on a PC when they upgraded 
> > their graphics card? We are considering doing so here, and I 
> > suspect it will make a vast improvement. Our PCs are pretty 
> > current. I don't want to get lost in the details of hardware 
> > configurations etc., but was wondering if anyone had any 
> > success in alleviating the problem
> 
> I suspect there'd be no noticeable improvement. (I assume your PC
> currently has a reasonably recent video card, not just an
> on-the-motherboard graphics chip that shares system memory.) 
> 
> John asked the first key question -- are the graphics on a network
> server? 
> 
> Assuming they're on your PC, how much RAM does it have? More RAM would
> almost certainly make far more difference than a faster graphics card.
> You should have at least a gigabyte. If you have lots of 
> large graphics,
> adding a second gig would be worthwhile. 
> 
> A very slow hard drive could also be a factor, but that's 
> unlikely with
> a reasonably current PC (you do defrag regularly, right?). 
> 
> HTH!
> Richard
> 

Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?

[Dov Isaacs]

Further update ... If you are access data from a "server",
make sure that the server likewise is amply endowed with
memory and high speed disk. Furthermore, if you don't have
it already, gigabit Ethernet can make a tremendous difference
in this application (even over 100BaseT 100 megabit Ethernet)!

- Dov 

> -Original Message-----
> From: Dov Isaacs
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 12:51 PM
> To: Combs, Richard; James Dyson; framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: RE: Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
> 
> My experience is that for FrameMaker, the graphics card
> is of relatively low significane for performance issues.
> 
> I would endorse Richard's suggestions wrt/ memory and 
> disk. A full boat of real memory and high speed disk
> (at least 7200 RPM if not higher) will make the most
> difference for long, complex FrameMaker documents.
> 
>   - Dov
> 
> 

RE: Adobe Acrobat Reader 8.0

[Dov Isaacs]

Expect it very soon. This is a good time, though, to
repeat my warning that you should not attempt to have
either multiple versions of Acrobat, multiple versions
of Reader, and/or mixtures of Acrobat and Reader installed
on a given system. Although it is possible to coerce the
installers to do that, it is neither endorsed nor
supported by Adobe. Many, many problems that we hear
about with regards to anything PDF ultimately get traced
to attempts to have anything more than one version of
Acrobat or of Reader installed on one system. In some
cases problems occur as the result of not fully uninstalling
previous versions or following the explicit directions of
the uninstaller to reboot as part of the uninstall procedure.
Failure to reboot in a timely fashion results in not all
the old version of Acrobat being fully and properly uninstalled.

Further note: There are incompatibilities between Acrobat 8
and FrameMaker 7.x save as PDF primarily due to Acrobat 8
storing joboption files in a different location and manner
than Acrobat 7. An Adobe Tech Note will come out about this
at some point.

- Dov
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Gillian Flato
 Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:12 AM
 To: framers@FrameUsers.com
 Subject: Adobe Acrobat Reader 8.0
 
 Anyone know when this is being released? Adobe is advertising 
 it on their website as coming soon.
 
 Thank you,
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Gillian Flato
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: Adobe Acrobat Reader 8.0

[Dov Isaacs]

Not quite right. 

Documents enabled with Acrobat 8 Professional (NOT
any version of Acrobat 7) can be digitally signed by
users of either Reader 7 or Reader 8.

Thus, you need Acrobat 8 Professional for the document
creator and still only need Reader 7 for the colleagues
who need to sign the documents (not that Reader 8 is
a problem or doesn't have some new features - but it 
isn't needed for signatures if they already have Reader 7).

- Dov
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Gillian Flato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:43 AM
 To: Dov Isaacs; framers@FrameUsers.com
 Subject: RE: Adobe Acrobat Reader 8.0
 
 Dov,
 
 The reason we want our colleagues to upgrade to Reader 8.0, 
 which is the only software they have on their systems, is 
 because the digital signature function doesn't work in Reader 
 7.0. I created a form in Acrobat Professional 7.0 with a 
 digital signature field. The other Tech Writers, who have 7.0 
 Pro as well, can open the form, create a digital signature 
 for themselves and sign the form.
 
 People who only have Reader 7.0 cannot sign the form. I was 
 told by a customer service Rep at Adobe that once they get 
 Reader 8.0, they'll be able to sign the forms I created in 7.0 Pro.
 
 Is this true? 
 
 
 Thank you,
 
  
 Gillian Flato
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: Adobe Acrobat Reader 8.0

[Dov Isaacs]

Steve,

No, Adobe Reader really isn't a stand-alone program that
can co-exist in multiple versions. 

Installation of Reader includes browser plug-ins, icon-handlers,
file associations, registry entries, etc. all of which are
candidates for conflicts.

The problems that I mention are more prevalent under Windows
than on Mac, but even the Mac has issues with such parallel
installations. Some program must respond to double clicks
to open/process files from the user interface.

For the full Acrobat product, the web is even more tangled with
PostScript driver plug-ins, port monitors, etc.

- Dov

 

 -Original Message-
 From: Steve Rickaby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:54 AM
 To: Dov Isaacs; Gillian Flato; framers@FrameUsers.com
 Subject: RE: Adobe Acrobat Reader 8.0
 
 At 09:37 -0800 3/11/06, Dov Isaacs wrote:
 
 This is a good time, though, to repeat my warning that you 
 should not attempt to have either multiple versions of 
 Acrobat, multiple versions of Reader, and/or mixtures of 
 Acrobat and Reader installed on a given system.
 
 Why, Dov? Reader, surely, is a stand-alone program that can 
 co-exist happily in multiple versions?
 
  Although it is possible to coerce the installers to do 
 that, it is neither endorsed nor supported by Adobe. Many, 
 many problems that we hear about with regards to anything PDF 
 ultimately get traced to attempts to have anything more than 
 one version of Acrobat or of Reader installed on one system.
 
 I hear you. One version of Acrobat Pro only makes sense, and 
 certainly the version of Pro should match the version of 
 Distiller... but Reader? Ok, 7 Pro can probably create PDF 
 versions or features that Reader 6 doesn't understand, but we 
 can allow for that. Freelances, in particular, often need 
 many tools in their tool-chest, and are extremely loath to 
 delete old versions of software that might one day be needed.
 
 FWIW, I've had 5 Pro and 6 Pro on a Mac for several years, as 
 well as Reader 7, without any apparent ill effects. In fact, 
 I can remember several instances a few years back when 
 Distiller 6 would not distill something, but Distiller 5 
 would, getting me out of Postscript-error hell.
 
 I can understand why Adobe might not want to support this 
 sort of mix, though.
 
 -- 
 Steve
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Adobe Acrobat Reader 8.0

[Dov Isaacs]

Expect it very soon. This is a good time, though, to
repeat my warning that you should not attempt to have
either multiple versions of Acrobat, multiple versions
of Reader, and/or mixtures of Acrobat and Reader installed
on a given system. Although it is possible to coerce the
installers to do that, it is neither endorsed nor
supported by Adobe. Many, many problems that we hear
about with regards to anything PDF ultimately get traced
to attempts to have anything more than one version of
Acrobat or of Reader installed on one system. In some
cases problems occur as the result of not fully uninstalling
previous versions or following the explicit directions of
the uninstaller to reboot as part of the uninstall procedure.
Failure to reboot in a timely fashion results in not all
the old version of Acrobat being fully and properly uninstalled.

Further note: There are incompatibilities between Acrobat 8
and FrameMaker 7.x "save as PDF" primarily due to Acrobat 8
storing joboption files in a different location and manner
than Acrobat 7. An Adobe Tech Note will come out about this
at some point.

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: Gillian Flato
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:12 AM
> To: framers at FrameUsers.com
> Subject: Adobe Acrobat Reader 8.0
> 
> Anyone know when this is being released? Adobe is advertising 
> it on their website as coming soon.
> 
> Thank you,
>  
> Gillian Flato

Adobe Acrobat Reader 8.0

[Dov Isaacs]

Not quite right. 

Documents "enabled" with Acrobat 8 Professional (NOT
any version of Acrobat 7) can be digitally signed by
users of either Reader 7 or Reader 8.

Thus, you need Acrobat 8 Professional for the document
creator and still only need Reader 7 for the colleagues
who need to sign the documents (not that Reader 8 is
a problem or doesn't have some new features - but it 
isn't needed for signatures if they already have Reader 7).

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: Gillian Flato [mailto:gflato at nanometrics.com] 
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:43 AM
> To: Dov Isaacs; framers at FrameUsers.com
> Subject: RE: Adobe Acrobat Reader 8.0
> 
> Dov,
> 
> The reason we want our colleagues to upgrade to Reader 8.0, 
> which is the only software they have on their systems, is 
> because the digital signature function doesn't work in Reader 
> 7.0. I created a form in Acrobat Professional 7.0 with a 
> digital signature field. The other Tech Writers, who have 7.0 
> Pro as well, can open the form, create a digital signature 
> for themselves and sign the form.
> 
> People who only have Reader 7.0 cannot sign the form. I was 
> told by a customer service Rep at Adobe that once they get 
> Reader 8.0, they'll be able to sign the forms I created in 7.0 Pro.
> 
> Is this true? 
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> 
>  
> Gillian Flato

Adobe Acrobat Reader 8.0

[Dov Isaacs]

Steve,

No, Adobe Reader really isn't a "stand-alone program that
can co-exist in multiple versions." 

Installation of Reader includes browser plug-ins, icon-handlers,
file associations, registry entries, etc. all of which are
candidates for conflicts.

The problems that I mention are more prevalent under Windows
than on Mac, but even the Mac has issues with such parallel
installations. Some program must respond to double clicks
to open/process files from the user interface.

For the full Acrobat product, the web is even more tangled with
PostScript driver plug-ins, port monitors, etc.

- Dov



> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Rickaby [mailto:srickaby at wordmongers.demon.co.uk] 
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:54 AM
> To: Dov Isaacs; Gillian Flato; framers at FrameUsers.com
> Subject: RE: Adobe Acrobat Reader 8.0
> 
> At 09:37 -0800 3/11/06, Dov Isaacs wrote:
> 
> >This is a good time, though, to repeat my warning that you 
> should not attempt to have either multiple versions of 
> Acrobat, multiple versions of Reader, and/or mixtures of 
> Acrobat and Reader installed on a given system.
> 
> Why, Dov? Reader, surely, is a stand-alone program that can 
> co-exist happily in multiple versions?
> 
> > Although it is possible to coerce the installers to do 
> that, it is neither endorsed nor supported by Adobe. Many, 
> many problems that we hear about with regards to anything PDF 
> ultimately get traced to attempts to have anything more than 
> one version of Acrobat or of Reader installed on one system.
> 
> I hear you. One version of Acrobat Pro only makes sense, and 
> certainly the version of Pro should match the version of 
> Distiller... but Reader? Ok, 7 Pro can probably create PDF 
> versions or features that Reader 6 doesn't understand, but we 
> can allow for that. Freelances, in particular, often need 
> many tools in their tool-chest, and are extremely loath to 
> delete old versions of software that might one day be needed.
> 
> FWIW, I've had 5 Pro and 6 Pro on a Mac for several years, as 
> well as Reader 7, without any apparent ill effects. In fact, 
> I can remember several instances a few years back when 
> Distiller 6 would not distill something, but Distiller 5 
> would, getting me out of Postscript-error hell.
> 
> I can understand why Adobe might not want to support this 
> sort of mix, though.
> 
> -- 
> Steve
> 

RE: PDF editing issues

[Dov Isaacs]

 

 -Original Message-
 From: David Creamer
 Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 5:34 AM
 To: framers@lists.frameusers.com
 Subject: Re: PDF editing issues
 
 ...
 
 For some strange reason, in Acrobat you can't even _delete_ text
unless you
 have the font installed on your system. Try these two options:
 
 1] Right-click on the type and go to Properties.
 Change the font to one in your system (lower down on the
list).
 Use the Touchup Text tool to delete the text.
 
 2] Try using the Touchup Object and delete the entire text object.
 Be careful with this option as it might delete more than you
expect.
 
 David Creamer


There is a very simple workaround for the problem of DELETING
text in font that doesn't allow editing privileges.

It turns out that there is ONE operation that IS allowed for
such text. You are still allowed to change the font to any
font that you have installed on your system that does allow
editable embedding. Change the font from, let's say Glurbish
Modern (a font that obviously doesn't allow editing) to 
let's say Inebriated Oblique (a font that probably doesn't
care if it is embedded or whatever). Once the font change is
made from Glurbish Modern to Inebriated Oblique, you can delete
the characters that are now in Inebriated Oblique without any
problem.

- Dov  
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: PDF editing issues

[Dov Isaacs]

Guess it was! Should have gotten a few more hours
of sleep before hitting the machine this morning.

- Dov 

 -Original Message-
 From: David Creamer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 9:30 AM
 To: Dov Isaacs; framers@lists.frameusers.com
 Subject: Re: PDF editing issues
 
  For some strange reason, in Acrobat you can't even _delete_ text
  unless you have the font installed on your system. Try 
 these two options:
  
  1] Right-click on the type and go to Properties.
  Change the font to one in your system (lower down 
 on the list).
  Use the Touchup Text tool to delete the text.
  
  There is a very simple workaround for the problem of DELETING
  text in font that doesn't allow editing privileges.
  
  It turns out that there is ONE operation that IS allowed for
  such text. You are still allowed to change the font to any
  font that you have installed on your system that does allow
  editable embedding. Change the font from, let's say Glurbish
  Modern (a font that obviously doesn't allow editing) to
  let's say Inebriated Oblique (a font that probably doesn't
  care if it is embedded or whatever). Once the font change is
  made from Glurbish Modern to Inebriated Oblique, you can delete
  the characters that are now in Inebriated Oblique without any
  problem.
  
 Dov, isn't this basically what I said, or am I missing 
 something (which is
 entirely possible)?
 
 Dave Creamer
 I.D.E.A.S.
 
 
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

PDF editing issues

[Dov Isaacs]

> -Original Message-
> From: David Creamer
> Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 5:34 AM
> To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: Re: PDF editing issues
> 
> ...
> 
> For some strange reason, in Acrobat you can't even _delete_ text
unless you
> have the font installed on your system. Try these two options:
> 
> 1] Right-click on the type and go to Properties.
> Change the font to one in your system (lower down on the
list).
> Use the Touchup Text tool to delete the text.
> 
> 2] Try using the Touchup Object and delete the entire text object.
> Be careful with this option as it might delete more than you
expect.
> 
> David Creamer


There is a very simple workaround for the problem of DELETING
text in font that doesn't allow editing privileges.

It turns out that there is ONE operation that IS allowed for
such text. You are still allowed to change the font to any
font that you have installed on your system that does allow
editable embedding. Change the font from, let's say "Glurbish
Modern" (a font that obviously doesn't allow editing) to 
let's say "Inebriated Oblique" (a font that probably doesn't
care if it is embedded or whatever). Once the font change is
made from Glurbish Modern to Inebriated Oblique, you can delete
the characters that are now in Inebriated Oblique without any
problem.

- Dov  

PDF editing issues

[Dov Isaacs]

Guess it was! Should have gotten a few more hours
of sleep before hitting the machine this morning.

- Dov 

> -Original Message-
> From: David Creamer [mailto:ideaslists at ideastraining.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 9:30 AM
> To: Dov Isaacs; framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: Re: PDF editing issues
> 
> >> For some strange reason, in Acrobat you can't even _delete_ text
> >> unless you have the font installed on your system. Try 
> these two options:
> >> 
> >> 1] Right-click on the type and go to Properties.
> >> Change the font to one in your system (lower down 
> on the list).
> >> Use the Touchup Text tool to delete the text.>
> > 
> > There is a very simple workaround for the problem of DELETING
> > text in font that doesn't allow editing privileges.
> > 
> > It turns out that there is ONE operation that IS allowed for
> > such text. You are still allowed to change the font to any
> > font that you have installed on your system that does allow
> > editable embedding. Change the font from, let's say "Glurbish
> > Modern" (a font that obviously doesn't allow editing) to
> > let's say "Inebriated Oblique" (a font that probably doesn't
> > care if it is embedded or whatever). Once the font change is
> > made from Glurbish Modern to Inebriated Oblique, you can delete
> > the characters that are now in Inebriated Oblique without any
> > problem.
> > 
> Dov, isn't this basically what I said, or am I missing 
> something (which is
> entirely possible)?
> 
> Dave Creamer
> I.D.E.A.S.
> 
> 
> 

posting Frame jobs?

[Dov Isaacs]

Do NOT try posting jobs on the Adobe User-to-User
forums ...

- Dov 

> -Original Message-
> From: owner-framers at omsys.com 
> [mailto:owner-framers at omsys.com] On Behalf Of Jason.Aiken at jeppesen.com
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 2:42 PM
> To: framers at omsys.com
> Subject: Re: posting Frame jobs?
> 
> Jeremy listed all the major FrameMaker places I know about. 
> You could also 
> try posting at the Adobe User Forums (don't know their policy), 
> monster.com, hotjobs, and other online job search locations.
> 
> Good luck in your search for an experienced candidate!
> 
> Regards,
> Jason
> 

RE: Understanding the difference between the Adobe Distiller embeddedin FrameMaker and Adobe Acrobat

[Dov Isaacs]

Karyn,

The difference is fairly simple. What is bundled with 
FrameMaker is Acrobat Distiller, the simple capability
of creating PDF from PostScript along with integration of
that capability into a PostScript printer driver instance
labelled as AdobePDF. You don't get the Microsoft Office,
Outlook, and web capture features that are available with
the full Acrobat package. Also, unless you have the full
Acrobat package, you must view your PDF files in Adobe
Reader. Adobe Reader is best thought of a pretty much a
read only (with some exceptions) version of the Acrobat
program that comes with the full Acrobat package. Reader
has no facilities for any type of PDF edits, adjustments,
whatever. Only certain privileged Acrobat plug-ins are
functional in Reader.

With regards to your specific question, although you
can print web pages to the AdobePDF PostScript printer
driver instance to create PDF with the FrameMaker-bundled
Distiller, you don't have the PDFMaker that works with
your browser to directly create PDF maintaining live links
and navigation. For that you need either Acrobat Standard
or Acrobat Pro.

- Dov
 

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  On Behalf Of Karyn Hunt
 Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 10:29 AM
 To: framers
 Subject: Understanding the difference between the Adobe 
 Distiller embeddedin FrameMaker and Adobe Acrobat
 
 Hi All,
 
This might be kind of a dumb question, but I've never 
 understood the difference between the Adobe Acrobat 
 capabilities we get bundled with FrameMaker and the full 
 Adobe Acrobat writer package. 
 
I'm finding that I need more capability than what I have 
 in FrameMaker, such as converting HTML pages to PDF while 
 maintaining the internal links. While the Acrobat that comes 
 with Frame will convert the HTML pages, I lose all of my 
 internal navigation.
 
So is that capability only in Acrobat Professional, which 
 is gonna cost us $500? Or is there some other, less expensive 
 way to accomplish this? Is there a mid-way package that will 
 cost us less? Am I missing something obvious in Frame that 
 will solve this problem for me?
 
 Karyn
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Understanding the difference between the Adobe Distiller embeddedin FrameMaker and Adobe Acrobat

[Dov Isaacs]

Karyn,

The difference is fairly simple. What is bundled with 
FrameMaker is Acrobat Distiller, the simple capability
of creating PDF from PostScript along with integration of
that capability into a PostScript printer driver instance
labelled as AdobePDF. You don't get the Microsoft Office,
Outlook, and web capture features that are available with
the full Acrobat package. Also, unless you have the full
Acrobat package, you must view your PDF files in Adobe
Reader. Adobe Reader is best thought of a pretty much a
"read only" (with some exceptions) version of the Acrobat
program that comes with the full Acrobat package. Reader
has no facilities for any type of PDF edits, adjustments,
whatever. Only certain privileged Acrobat plug-ins are
functional in Reader.

With regards to your specific question, although you
can print web pages to the AdobePDF PostScript printer
driver instance to create PDF with the FrameMaker-bundled
Distiller, you don't have the PDFMaker that works with
your browser to directly create PDF maintaining live links
and navigation. For that you need either Acrobat Standard
or Acrobat Pro.

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com 
> [mailto:framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com]
>  On Behalf Of Karyn Hunt
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 10:29 AM
> To: framers
> Subject: Understanding the difference between the Adobe 
> Distiller embeddedin FrameMaker and Adobe Acrobat
> 
> Hi All,
> 
>This might be kind of a dumb question, but I've never 
> understood the difference between the Adobe Acrobat 
> capabilities we get bundled with FrameMaker and the full 
> Adobe Acrobat "writer" package. 
> 
>I'm finding that I need more capability than what I have 
> in FrameMaker, such as converting HTML pages to PDF while 
> maintaining the internal links. While the Acrobat that comes 
> with Frame will convert the HTML pages, I lose all of my 
> internal navigation.
> 
>So is that capability only in Acrobat Professional, which 
> is gonna cost us $500? Or is there some other, less expensive 
> way to accomplish this? Is there a mid-way package that will 
> cost us less? Am I missing something obvious in Frame that 
> will solve this problem for me?
> 
> Karyn

RE: Corrupted PDFs

[Dov Isaacs]

If you can indeed OPEN and view the PDF file in
either Reader or Acrobat, the file is not corrupted.
An inability to delete or move a file is not indicative
of file corruption, but rather, that some program is
holding the file open. That program may be on your
system or perhaps the server itself or some other user
on the network. Note that sometimes even though you think
you have ended a run of Acrobat, it still is running for
a while and may have some files open.

Another possibility is that you put the file into a
network directory for which your access privileges are
setup to allow you to open existing files or even create 
files in that directory, but not delete or otherwise mess
with file attributes.

Some simple things to try: Reboot YOUR computer. If your
computer was the culprit, i.e., some program holding it
open, then the reboot should clear it.

If the reboot doesn't clear the problem and you KNOW that
no one else on the network is accessing that file, you
should have your network administrator check your access
privileges on the server and specifically for the directory
in question. You clearly need read, write, file create, file
deletion, file attribute modification, etc. privileges for
that directory.

- Dov

 

 -Original Message-
 Gillian Flato wrote:
 Guys,
  
 Frame 7.0 p495
 Acrobat 7.0 Professional
 on a network drive
  
 I am having a problem where when I create a PDF, it becomes corrupted
 and I can't delete or move it. I can open it, but that's it. But this
 means that when I change the software, I can't rebuild the 
 PDF so it's critical. Any suggestions.
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Corrupted PDFs

[Dov Isaacs]

If you can indeed OPEN and view the PDF file in
either Reader or Acrobat, the file is not "corrupted."
An inability to delete or move a file is not indicative
of file corruption, but rather, that some program is
holding the file "open." That program may be on your
system or perhaps the server itself or some other user
on the network. Note that sometimes even though you think
you have ended a run of Acrobat, it still is running for
a while and may have some files open.

Another possibility is that you put the file into a
network directory for which your access privileges are
setup to allow you to open existing files or even create 
files in that directory, but not delete or otherwise mess
with file attributes.

Some simple things to try: Reboot YOUR computer. If your
computer was the culprit, i.e., some program holding it
open, then the reboot should clear it.

If the reboot doesn't clear the problem and you KNOW that
no one else on the network is accessing that file, you
should have your network administrator check your access
privileges on the server and specifically for the directory
in question. You clearly need read, write, file create, file
deletion, file attribute modification, etc. privileges for
that directory.

- Dov



> -Original Message-
> Gillian Flato wrote:
> Guys,
>  
> Frame 7.0 p495
> Acrobat 7.0 Professional
> on a network drive
>  
> I am having a problem where when I create a PDF, it becomes corrupted
> and I can't delete or move it. I can open it, but that's it. But this
> means that when I change the software, I can't rebuild the 
> PDF so it's critical. Any suggestions.

Experience Running FrameMaker on the new MacIntel

[Dov Isaacs]

Unless you are running "Bootcamp" and Windows, forget
totally about running FrameMaker on a Mactel system.
The OS for Mactel does NOT support classic mode under
which FrameMaker runs with MacOS X.

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com 
> [mailto:framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com]
>  On Behalf Of Scott Abel
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 6:08 AM
> To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: Experience Running FrameMaker on the new MacIntel
> 
> Just checking i to see if any of you have installed 
> FrameMaker on the new MacIntel? I just picked up my first 
> MacIntel Laptop and am preparing to install Framemaker to see 
> how a brand-spanking new Mac laptop loaded with maximum RAM 
> and the latest Mac OX X release can handle Frame. But before 
> I go down this path, I thought I'd check to see if anyone 
> here has tried such an approach and if there are any 
> documented articles about this approach from tech writers?
> 
> Thanks in advance for any feedback or advice you may have.
> 
> Scott Abel, CEO
> 

RE: Options for cross-grading, Mac to PC

[Dov Isaacs]

Steve  Fred,

That 90-day (or whatever) restriction on version-to-version
upgrades on the same computer went out a number of years ago.

However, when you are dealing with a platform-to-platform
sidegrade, you are dealing with software on distinctly
separate computers! The restriction is comparable to that
of the version-to-version upgrade not allowing you to
install or give away the old version for use on another
computer.

- Dov


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  On Behalf Of Ridder, Fred
 Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:46 AM
 To: Steve Rickaby; framers@frameusers.com
 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: Options for cross-grading, Mac to PC
 
 It's really not any different from Adobe's standard upgrade policy.
 If you buy an upgrade license for most (if not all) of their 
 products, it only entitles you to keep both versions 
 installed for a transition period (90 days, as I recall). 
 After that period you are supposed to uninstall the old 
 version. For contractors who might need to have multiple 
 versions available to them to work on client projects using 
 the correct tool version, this technically mean s multiple 
 full licenses for each version.  Not very user-friendly, but 
 it's the way Adobe has structured their licenses for years.
 
 My opinions only; I don't speak for Intel.
 Fred Ridder (fred dot ridder at intel dot com) Intel Parsippany, NJ
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: good flowchart software to use with Frame

[Dov Isaacs]

PNG is a raster format that does not scale well.
Visio is primarily vector. You want to preserve the
content as vector. Best best is to produce PDF from
Visio and import either the PDF or EPS (saved from
the PDF in Acrobat) into your FrameMaker document.

- Dov

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  On Behalf Of Niels Fanøe
 Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:55 AM
 To: Beth Prince; framers@lists.frameusers.com
 Subject: RE: good flowchart software to use with Frame
 
 Visio - save as PNG. Works well for me.
 
 -Niels 
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: Options for cross-grading, Mac to PC

[Dov Isaacs]

All Adobe's EULAs are posted for public inspection on its
website. See http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/.

- Dov
 

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  On Behalf Of Peter Gold
 Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 10:53 AM
 To: Ridder, Fred
 Cc: framers@frameusers.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: Options for cross-grading, Mac to PC
 
 Hi, Fred:
 
 Ridder, Fred wrote:
  Thanks for the information, Dov. I guess I need to be more 
  meticulous about reading the EULA (which we all read in
  detail before we break the seal on the software distribution,
  right?)  

 PLEASE, please tell me how to read the EULA that's on the 
 disk or in the 
 box without breaking the sealed shrinkwrap!G
 
 Regards,
 
 Peter Gold
 KnowHow ProServices
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Options for cross-grading, Mac to PC

[Dov Isaacs]

Steve & Fred,

That 90-day (or whatever) restriction on version-to-version
upgrades on the same computer went out a number of years ago.

However, when you are dealing with a platform-to-platform
"sidegrade," you are dealing with software on distinctly
separate computers! The restriction is comparable to that
of the version-to-version upgrade not allowing you to
install or give away the old version for use on another
computer.

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com 
> [mailto:framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com]
>  On Behalf Of Ridder, Fred
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:46 AM
> To: Steve Rickaby; framers at frameusers.com
> Cc: fmforosx at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: Options for cross-grading, Mac to PC
> 
> It's really not any different from Adobe's standard upgrade policy.
> If you buy an upgrade license for most (if not all) of their 
> products, it only entitles you to keep both versions 
> installed for a transition period (90 days, as I recall). 
> After that period you are supposed to uninstall the old 
> version. For contractors who might need to have multiple 
> versions available to them to work on client projects using 
> the correct tool version, this technically mean s multiple 
> full licenses for each version.  Not very user-friendly, but 
> it's the way Adobe has structured their licenses for years.
> 
> My opinions only; I don't speak for Intel.
> Fred Ridder (fred dot ridder at intel dot com) Intel Parsippany, NJ

good flowchart software to use with Frame

[Dov Isaacs]

PNG is a raster format that does not scale well.
Visio is primarily vector. You want to preserve the
content as vector. Best best is to produce PDF from
Visio and import either the PDF or EPS (saved from
the PDF in Acrobat) into your FrameMaker document.

- Dov

> -Original Message-
> From: framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com 
> [mailto:framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com]
>  On Behalf Of Niels Fan?e
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:55 AM
> To: Beth Prince; framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: RE: good flowchart software to use with Frame
> 
> Visio - save as PNG. Works well for me.
> 
> -Niels 
> 

Options for cross-grading, Mac to PC

[Dov Isaacs]

All Adobe's EULAs are posted for public inspection on its
website. See .

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com 
> [mailto:framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com]
>  On Behalf Of Peter Gold
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 10:53 AM
> To: Ridder, Fred
> Cc: framers at frameusers.com; fmforosx at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Options for cross-grading, Mac to PC
> 
> Hi, Fred:
> 
> Ridder, Fred wrote:
> > Thanks for the information, Dov. I guess I need to be more 
> > meticulous about reading the EULA (which we all read in
> > detail before we break the seal on the software distribution,
> > right?)  
> >   
> PLEASE, please tell me how to read the EULA that's on the 
> disk or in the 
> box without breaking the sealed shrinkwrap!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter Gold
> KnowHow ProServices

RE: Question about Rational SODA tool

[Dov Isaacs]

If FrameMaker is to go bye-bye very soon, that would be
real news to anybody at Adobe, especially the team working
on the next release.

Which colleague was told by whom? It is very easy for
sales and marketing reps from competitors to spout out this
type of cr*p, but it doesn't mean that it has any foundation
in truth.

- Dov
 

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 7:46 AM
 To: framers@frameusers.com
 Subject: OT: Question about Rational SODA tool
 
 All,
 
 I have a colleague who is being told that Framemaker is to go 
 bye-bye very soon and that she will be needing to use 
 Rational SODA to develop her documentation. I have googled 
 this tool (as has she) and if they (as in her powers-that-be) 
 want a developer who likes to write, then this would appear 
 to be the tool of choice; however, for classic end-user 
 deliverables such as Sys Admin guides, User Guides, OLH, etc. 
 is does not appear to be the tool to use. She is desperately 
 needing some supporting arguments/input to validate why 
 Framemaker needs to stay.
 
 Has anybody used this tool? Does anybody know anything about 
 it? Arguments for/against using it as a classic TW tool? This 
 list has so many literate, articulate and knowledgable 
 folks, I am sure somebody has experience with this or can 
 explain the for/against tool arguments and help her along - 
 Fred, John, Shlomo, Steve, Peter, Lynn, Kay, Bernard, etc. . 
 . . Calling all to arms!
 
 Thanks,
 
 TVB
 
 Tammy Van Boening
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Question about Rational SODA tool

[Dov Isaacs]

If "FrameMaker is to go bye-bye very soon," that would be
real news to anybody at Adobe, especially the team working
on the next release.

Which "colleague" was told by "whom?" It is very easy for
sales and marketing reps from competitors to spout out this
type of cr*p, but it doesn't mean that it has any foundation
in truth.

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: Tammy.VanBoening at jeppesen.com
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 7:46 AM
> To: framers at frameusers.com
> Subject: OT: Question about Rational SODA tool
> 
> All,
> 
> I have a colleague who is being told that Framemaker is to go 
> bye-bye very soon and that she will be needing to use 
> Rational SODA to develop her documentation. I have googled 
> this tool (as has she) and if they (as in her powers-that-be) 
> want a developer who likes to write, then this would appear 
> to be the tool of choice; however, for "classic" end-user 
> deliverables such as Sys Admin guides, User Guides, OLH, etc. 
> is does not appear to be the tool to use. She is desperately 
> needing some supporting arguments/input to validate why 
> Framemaker needs to stay.
> 
> Has anybody used this tool? Does anybody know anything about 
> it? Arguments for/against using it as a classic TW tool? This 
> list has so many literate, articulate and knowledgable 
> folks, I am sure somebody has experience with this or can 
> explain the for/against tool arguments and help her along - 
> Fred, John, Shlomo, Steve, Peter, Lynn, Kay, Bernard, etc. . 
> . . Calling all to arms!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> TVB
> 
> Tammy Van Boening

RE: FM Installation

[Dov Isaacs]

A few things ...

If you have doggie-droppings on your system from Acrobat 4
(i.e., you didn't COMPLETELY uninstall Acrobat 4 prior to
installing Acrobat 7), you definitely will have problems
with FrameMaker 7's save as PDF feature as well as other
integration of Acrobat with other system functions.

Furthermore, I believe FrameMaker 7.0 came out BEFORE
Acrobat 6. In Acrobat 6, the name of the PostScript printer
driver instance used by Acrobat changed to Adobe PDF.
I believe that FrameMaker 7.1 was the first version of
FrameMaker to be compatible with that name change (affecting
Acrobat 6 and 7).

- Dov


 -Original Message-
 From: DON SHAFFER
 Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 6:32 AM
 To: framers@lists.frameusers.com
 Subject: FM Installation
 
 
 We recently received new computers. FM 7.0 is installed, with 
 our Acrobat updated from 4 to 7. We are now unable to save 
 book as pdf. FM appears not to be able to find Distiller as 
 a printer option? Please suggest how to correct our problem.
 Don Shaffer
 Ariel Corp.
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

FM Installation

[Dov Isaacs]

A few things ...

If you have doggie-droppings on your system from Acrobat 4
(i.e., you didn't COMPLETELY uninstall Acrobat 4 prior to
installing Acrobat 7), you definitely will have problems
with FrameMaker 7's "save as PDF" feature as well as other
integration of Acrobat with other system functions.

Furthermore, I believe FrameMaker 7.0 came out BEFORE
Acrobat 6. In Acrobat 6, the name of the PostScript printer
driver instance used by Acrobat changed to "Adobe PDF."
I believe that FrameMaker 7.1 was the first version of
FrameMaker to be compatible with that name change (affecting
Acrobat 6 and 7).

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: DON SHAFFER
> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 6:32 AM
> To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: FM Installation
> 
> 
> We recently received new computers. FM 7.0 is installed, with 
> our Acrobat updated from 4 to 7. We are now unable to "save 
> book as pdf". FM appears not to be able to find Distiller as 
> a printer option? Please suggest how to correct our problem.
> Don Shaffer
> Ariel Corp.

RE: FrameViewer

[Dov Isaacs]

The concept of FrameViewer was effectively replaced
by Acrobat. FrameViewer has not been available for
many years!

- Dov 

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  On Behalf Of Shmuel Wolfson
 Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 5:23 AM
 To: Framers
 Subject: FrameViewer
 
 Is FrameViewer for Windows still available?
 I can't find anything on Adobe's site except for a patch for it.
 If yes, how much does it cost?
 
 -- 
 Regards,
 Shmuel Wolfson
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

FrameViewer

[Dov Isaacs]

The concept of FrameViewer was effectively replaced
by Acrobat. FrameViewer has not been available for
many years!

- Dov 

> -Original Message-
> From: framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com 
> [mailto:framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com]
>  On Behalf Of Shmuel Wolfson
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 5:23 AM
> To: Framers
> Subject: FrameViewer
> 
> Is FrameViewer for Windows still available?
> I can't find anything on Adobe's site except for a patch for it.
> If yes, how much does it cost?
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Shmuel Wolfson

RE: Eps problem

[Dov Isaacs]

It was only on certain UNIX versions of FrameMaker that
EPS would be so-rendered. That was never a feature of
FrameMaker either on Macintosh or Windows.

- Dov 

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 1:36 AM
 To: Mark Southee
 Cc: framers@FrameUsers.com; 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: Eps problem
 
 Hi Mark
 
 FrameMaker cannot display the eps graphic. It only displays 
 an included preview. You have to enhance this preview, e.g. 
 increase the dpi setting, to get a better display (and a 
 bigger filesize). Look at the settings in Illustrator when 
 saving the graphic as eps.
 Earlier releases of FrameMaker could display the eps graphs 
 directly, when DisplayPostScript was available ...
 
 Regards
 Matthias
 
 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on
 10.08.2006 09:13:50:
 
  I've imported an eps for a cover graphic (full US Letter 
 size) that in
  Frame looks horribly pixellated and only displays in black 
 and white.
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Eps problem

[Dov Isaacs]

It was only on certain UNIX versions of FrameMaker that
EPS would be so-rendered. That was never a feature of
FrameMaker either on Macintosh or Windows.

- Dov 

> -Original Message-
> From: framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com 
> [mailto:framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com]
>  On Behalf Of Matthias.Dillier at snb.ch
> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 1:36 AM
> To: Mark Southee
> Cc: framers at FrameUsers.com; 
> framers-bounces+matthias.dillier=snb.ch at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: Re: Eps problem
> 
> Hi Mark
> 
> FrameMaker cannot display the eps graphic. It only displays 
> an included preview. You have to enhance this preview, e.g. 
> increase the dpi setting, to get a better display (and a 
> bigger filesize). Look at the settings in Illustrator when 
> saving the graphic as eps.
> Earlier releases of FrameMaker could display the eps graphs 
> directly, when DisplayPostScript was available ...
> 
> Regards
> Matthias
> 
> 
> framers-bounces+matthias.dillier=snb.ch at lists.frameusers.com wrote on
> 10.08.2006 09:13:50:
> 
> > I've imported an eps for a cover graphic (full US Letter 
> size) that in
> > Frame looks horribly pixellated and only displays in black 
> and white.

RE: PDF Page Size Issues

[Dov Isaacs]

Please advise as to exactly how YOU create the PDF,
save as PDF, printing to the AdobePDF PostScript 
printer driver instance, or manually creating and
then distilling PostScript?

- Dov 

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  On Behalf Of Reng, Winfried Dr.
 Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 12:35 AM
 To: Framers (E-mail)
 Subject: RE: PDF Page Size Issues
 
 Hi,
 
 I have the same problem every half year. When I restart
 my PC everything is OK again (at least until now).
 
 Best regards
 
 Winfried
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

PDF Page Size Issues

[Dov Isaacs]

Please advise as to exactly how YOU create the PDF,
save as PDF, printing to the AdobePDF PostScript 
printer driver instance, or manually creating and
then distilling PostScript?

- Dov 

> -Original Message-
> From: framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com 
> [mailto:framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com]
>  On Behalf Of Reng, Winfried Dr.
> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 12:35 AM
> To: Framers (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: PDF Page Size Issues
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have the same problem every half year. When I restart
> my PC everything is OK again (at least until now).
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Winfried

RE: Can't print to Adobe PDF printer

[Dov Isaacs]

Confirming Fred's analysis of and recommended cure for
problem.

- Someone who still does monitor this forum

  

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  On Behalf Of Ridder, Fred
 Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 1:53 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; framers@lists.frameusers.com
 Subject: RE: Can't print to Adobe PDF printer
 
 To quote an authoritative Adobe employee who used to monitor
 and participate on this list, the Distiller 5.0 installation included 
 in the FrameMaker 7.0 distribution to run bunny-stomps all over
 any newer version of Acrobat you might have had installed. In
 other words, by letting the Distiller install run, you hosed your
 current full version of the Acrobat suite. Your only option at this
 point is to uninstall all Acrobat components of any version and 
 then completely reinstall your current Acrobat 7.0 Professional 
 package.  
 
 My opinions only; I don't speak for Intel.
 Fred Ridder (fred dot ridder at intel dot com)
 Intel
 Parsippany, NJ
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Can't print to Adobe PDF printer

[Dov Isaacs]

Confirming Fred's analysis of and recommended "cure" for
problem.

- Someone who still does monitor this forum



> -Original Message-
> From: framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com 
> [mailto:framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com]
>  On Behalf Of Ridder, Fred
> Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 1:53 PM
> To: pearlrosenberg at nc.rr.com; framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: RE: Can't print to Adobe PDF printer
> 
> To quote an authoritative Adobe employee who used to monitor
> and participate on this list, the Distiller 5.0 installation included 
> in the FrameMaker 7.0 distribution to run "bunny-stomps all over"
> any newer version of Acrobat you might have had installed. In
> other words, by letting the Distiller install run, you hosed your
> current full version of the Acrobat suite. Your only option at this
> point is to uninstall all Acrobat components of any version and 
> then completely reinstall your current Acrobat 7.0 Professional 
> package.  
> 
> My opinions only; I don't speak for Intel.
> Fred Ridder (fred dot ridder at intel dot com)
> Intel
> Parsippany, NJ
> 

RE: Help with converting a Visio file into a PDF

[Dov Isaacs]

Yes, the advice (I gave it) still holds.
No reason why it shouldn't!

- Dov 

 -Original Message-
 From: Jon Harvey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 9:32 AM
 To: Dov Isaacs; Steve Rickaby; framers@FrameUsers.com
 Subject: RE: Help with converting a Visio file into a PDF
 
 Here is the procedure I pulled off this list years ago. It's been
 sitting either in, on, under, or behind my desk for what seems like
 forever. Does it still hold true with the current software out there?
 
 1. Save the file in Visio as a PDF.
 2. Open the PDF in Acrobat.
 3. Save the Acrobat file as and EPS, with TIFF preview/fonts embedded.
 4. Import the EPS into FrameMaker.
 Note: The image may look fuzzy in FM when imported. Remember, this is
 the TIFF preview, not the printed page.
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 sers.com]
 On Behalf Of Dov Isaacs
 Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 2:21 PM
 To: Steve Rickaby; framers@FrameUsers.com
 Subject: RE: Help with converting a Visio file into a PDF
 
 FrameMaker does NOT have the ability to import Visio native
 files. It does have the ability to use OLE (object linking 
 and embedding) links to such a Viso document file, but that
 requires that Visio be installed on the system that runs
 FrameMaker. Also, OLE is notoriously unreliable.
 
   - Dov
  
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   On Behalf Of Steve Rickaby
  Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 7:54 AM
  To: framers@FrameUsers.com
  Subject: Re: Help with converting a Visio file into a PDF
  
  At 07:40 -0700 28/6/06, Roopa Belur wrote:
  
My apologies for not being clear. My company uses 
  Microsoft Word. They are considering moving to Frame in the 
  next few months.
   
  I need help converting a Visio file into PDF without 
  Distiller or any Adobe product.
  
  Er... just a quick query: you're not trying to go from Visio 
  to PDF so that you can import the PDF into FrameMaker, are 
  you? Because if so, I don't think you need to bother: PC 
  FrameMaker can import Visio native files directly (or so I've 
  been told - I don't use Visio).
  -- 
  Steve
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Help with converting a Visio file into a PDF

[Dov Isaacs]

Yes, the advice (I gave it) still holds.
No reason why it shouldn't!

- Dov 

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Harvey [mailto:JHarvey at cambridgesoft.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 9:32 AM
> To: Dov Isaacs; Steve Rickaby; framers at FrameUsers.com
> Subject: RE: Help with converting a Visio file into a PDF
> 
> Here is the procedure I pulled off this list years ago. It's been
> sitting either in, on, under, or behind my desk for what seems like
> forever. Does it still hold true with the current software out there?
> 
> "1. Save the file in Visio as a PDF.
> 2. Open the PDF in Acrobat.
> 3. Save the Acrobat file as and EPS, with TIFF preview/fonts embedded.
> 4. Import the EPS into FrameMaker.
> Note: The image may look fuzzy in FM when imported. Remember, this is
> the TIFF preview, not the printed page."
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: framers-bounces+jharvey=cambridgesoft.com at lists.frameusers.com
> [mailto:framers-bounces+jharvey=cambridgesoft.com at lists.frameu
> sers.com]
> On Behalf Of Dov Isaacs
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 2:21 PM
> To: Steve Rickaby; framers at FrameUsers.com
> Subject: RE: Help with converting a Visio file into a PDF
> 
> FrameMaker does NOT have the ability to import "Visio native
> files." It does have the ability to use OLE (object linking 
> and embedding) links to such a Viso document file, but that
> requires that Visio be installed on the system that runs
> FrameMaker. Also, OLE is notoriously unreliable.
> 
>   - Dov
>  
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com 
> > [mailto:framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com]
> >  On Behalf Of Steve Rickaby
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 7:54 AM
> > To: framers at FrameUsers.com
> > Subject: Re: Help with converting a Visio file into a PDF
> > 
> > At 07:40 -0700 28/6/06, Roopa Belur wrote:
> > 
> > >  My apologies for not being clear. My company uses 
> > Microsoft Word. They are considering moving to Frame in the 
> > next few months.
> > > 
> > >I need help converting a Visio file into PDF without 
> > Distiller or any Adobe product.
> > 
> > Er... just a quick query: you're not trying to go from Visio 
> > to PDF so that you can import the PDF into FrameMaker, are 
> > you? Because if so, I don't think you need to bother: PC 
> > FrameMaker can import Visio native files directly (or so I've 
> > been told - I don't use Visio).
> > -- 
> > Steve
> 

RE: Help with converting a Visio file into a PDF

[Dov Isaacs]

FrameMaker does NOT have the ability to import Visio native
files. It does have the ability to use OLE (object linking 
and embedding) links to such a Viso document file, but that
requires that Visio be installed on the system that runs
FrameMaker. Also, OLE is notoriously unreliable.

- Dov
 

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  On Behalf Of Steve Rickaby
 Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 7:54 AM
 To: framers@FrameUsers.com
 Subject: Re: Help with converting a Visio file into a PDF
 
 At 07:40 -0700 28/6/06, Roopa Belur wrote:
 
   My apologies for not being clear. My company uses 
 Microsoft Word. They are considering moving to Frame in the 
 next few months.
  
 I need help converting a Visio file into PDF without 
 Distiller or any Adobe product.
 
 Er... just a quick query: you're not trying to go from Visio 
 to PDF so that you can import the PDF into FrameMaker, are 
 you? Because if so, I don't think you need to bother: PC 
 FrameMaker can import Visio native files directly (or so I've 
 been told - I don't use Visio).
 -- 
 Steve
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Help with converting a Visio file into a PDF

[Dov Isaacs]

FrameMaker does NOT have the ability to import "Visio native
files." It does have the ability to use OLE (object linking 
and embedding) links to such a Viso document file, but that
requires that Visio be installed on the system that runs
FrameMaker. Also, OLE is notoriously unreliable.

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com 
> [mailto:framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com]
>  On Behalf Of Steve Rickaby
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 7:54 AM
> To: framers at FrameUsers.com
> Subject: Re: Help with converting a Visio file into a PDF
> 
> At 07:40 -0700 28/6/06, Roopa Belur wrote:
> 
> >  My apologies for not being clear. My company uses 
> Microsoft Word. They are considering moving to Frame in the 
> next few months.
> > 
> >I need help converting a Visio file into PDF without 
> Distiller or any Adobe product.
> 
> Er... just a quick query: you're not trying to go from Visio 
> to PDF so that you can import the PDF into FrameMaker, are 
> you? Because if so, I don't think you need to bother: PC 
> FrameMaker can import Visio native files directly (or so I've 
> been told - I don't use Visio).
> -- 
> Steve
> 

Speeding up FM 7.2 Startup

[Dov Isaacs]

The AdobePiStd font is a substitution font for ITC Zapf
Dingbats used by the PDF Library and by Acrobat when 
PDF files call for ITC Zapf Dingbats but do not have it
installed. In the case of FrameMaker, it may be necessary
when PDF files are imported into FrameMaker. 

It should NOT be removed as part of any expedient for
faster FrameMaker loading.

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: lists.frameusers.com On Behalf Of Phil Heron
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 8:36 AM
> To: framers
> Subject: RE: Speeding up FM 7.2 Startup
> 
> I do use the Symbol font but it's the Microsoft TrueType one 
> shipped with Windows.
> 
> Consulting my archive, I see that Dov Isaacs sent a message 
> to the list on 25/10/04 stating:
> 
> "(3) Yes. Some peculiar interaction between the PostScript 
> driver and Windows 2000 / XP / Server 2003 requires that 
> Symbol TrueType font and it uses that font instead of the 
> Type 1 font."
> 
> I also removed the AdobePiStd font because it has no 
> characters in the range available for use by FrameMaker.
> 
> Phil Heron


> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Rickaby [mailto:srickaby at wordmongers.demon.co.uk]
> Sent: 21 June 2006 16:25
> To: framers at FrameUsers.com
> Cc: Phil Heron
> Subject: Re: Speeding up FM 7.2 Startup
> 
> At 15:20 +0100 21/6/06, Phil Heron wrote:
> 
> >For your information, I removed the following fonts:
> >- Japanese (Heisei* and Koz*)
> >- Chinese and Korean (AdobeMingStd, AdobeMyungjoStd-Medium and
> >AdobeSongStd-Light)
> >- Symbol (AdobePiStd and SymbolStd)
> 
> Phil - I seem to remember reading somewhere that FrameMaker 
> malfunctions without the Symbol font. That might no longer be 
> true in 7.2, of course.
> --
> Steve

RE: Colour question

[Dov Isaacs]

Lester is right! And also be aware that NO, repeat NO,
repeat yet again NO Windows driver, whether PostScript
or otherwise, can accept CMYK from applications, except
for EPS passthrough with the PostScript driver, since
the Windows imaging model is totally RGB. Drivers can
output CMYK (as the PostScript driver does), but since
the input to the driver is GDI and GDI is totally RGB,
in general, an application program cannot communicate
CMYK directly to a print driver. This includes FrameMaker,
with the exception of EPS passthrough.

- Dov 

 -Original Message-
 From: lists.frameusers.com On Behalf Of Lester C. Smalley
 Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 1:55 PM
 Subject: RE: Colour question
 
 As has been repeated in this forum, time and time again, if 
 you are 'printing' to PDF you should be using the Acrobat 
 Distiller print driver, and not the drivers for any specific 
 real or generic device.
 This should show up in your system (Windows) as the Adobe 
 PDF or Acrobat Distiller (if you have an older version of 
 Acrobat) printer.
 
 While you may not have any immediate problems, there is the 
 strong possibility that the resulting PDF will not be 
 compatible for all devices, or suffer from other problems 
 which will rear their ugly heads at the most inopportune 
 times such as 15 minutes before a critical deadline.
 
 And I am not convinced that the printer drivers in Windows 
 use CMYK - they may, but they may also just use RGB which is 
 what the Windows GDI (Graphic Device Interface) uses as it's 
 default color space.
 
 On Friday, June 09, 2006 03:09 PM, Daniel Doornbos wrote:
 
  SNIP 
 
 | When you print to PDF, you use a printer driver, either a specific
color
 | laser printer or a generic driver. These drivers use CMYK color as
well,
 | so again, you are left with an approximation.
 
 - Lester
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Colour question

[Dov Isaacs]

Lester is right! And also be aware that NO, repeat NO,
repeat yet again NO Windows driver, whether PostScript
or otherwise, can accept CMYK from applications, except
for EPS passthrough with the PostScript driver, since
the Windows imaging model is totally RGB. Drivers can
output CMYK (as the PostScript driver does), but since
the input to the driver is GDI and GDI is totally RGB,
in general, an application program cannot communicate
CMYK directly to a print driver. This includes FrameMaker,
with the exception of EPS passthrough.

- Dov 

> -Original Message-
> From: lists.frameusers.com On Behalf Of Lester C. Smalley
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 1:55 PM
> Subject: RE: Colour question
> 
> As has been repeated in this forum, time and time again, if 
> you are 'printing' to PDF you should be using the Acrobat 
> Distiller print driver, and not the drivers for any specific 
> real or generic device.
> This should show up in your system (Windows) as the "Adobe 
> PDF" or "Acrobat Distiller" (if you have an older version of 
> Acrobat) printer.
> 
> While you may not have any immediate problems, there is the 
> strong possibility that the resulting PDF will not be 
> compatible for all devices, or suffer from other problems 
> which will rear their ugly heads at the most inopportune 
> times such as 15 minutes before a critical deadline.
> 
> And I am not convinced that the printer drivers in Windows 
> use CMYK - they may, but they may also just use RGB which is 
> what the Windows GDI (Graphic Device Interface) uses as it's 
> default color space.
> 
> On Friday, June 09, 2006 03:09 PM, Daniel Doornbos wrote:
> 
> < SNIP >
> 
> | When you print to PDF, you use a printer driver, either a specific
color
> | laser printer or a generic driver. These drivers use CMYK color as
well,
> | so again, you are left with an approximation.
> 
> - Lester
> 

Identifying the type of imported by copy files

[Dov Isaacs]

Unfortunately, apparently the figures weren't put into the 
FrameMaker document via simple copy/paste (bad idea anyway),
but via OLE, "Object Linking and Embedding," which effectively
requires that the FrameMaker document be edited on a system
of the same platform with the application and the application's
file/data available from which the data was copied.

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com 
> [mailto:framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com]
>  On Behalf Of Steve Rickaby
> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 2:44 AM
> To: framers at FrameUsers.com
> Subject: Identifying the type of imported by copy files
> 
> Hi Framers
> 
> A friend has a FrameMaker file prepared on PC with figures 
> imported by copy that show up as gray boxes when viewed on 
> Mac - so no surprises there. Examination of the MIF shows 
> that they are bitmaps. Is there any way to identify the 
> embedded image types from the MIF?
> 
> The bitmaps in the MIF are all prefixed by: 
> 
> =OLE2
> &%v
> [bitmap data]
> 
> ...if that's any clue. My reading of the MIF on-line guide 
> suggests that the '=OLE2' is FrameMaker's facet definition, 
> but what does this actually mean in terms of graphic format? 
> Surely 'OLE' is a technology, not a graphics format? It's not 
> listed in any copy of the MIF on-line guide (6, 7.0) that I 
> have. Maybe it's in the 7.2 version?
> -- 
> Steve
> ___

RE: Adobe User Experience Recruiter

[Dov Isaacs]

Marisa Lenhardt is indeed an Adobe employee and has 
the title User Experience Recruiter.

- Dov 

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  On Behalf Of Denise L. Moss-Fritch
 Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 6:32 PM
 To: 'Bill Briggs'; framers@lists.frameusers.com
 Subject: RE: Adobe User Experience Recruiter
 
 Yes, I received an email too and responded to the survey 
 particularly because my earlier participation with Adobe (in 
 San Jose) was mentioned in the email.
 
 Best,
 
  Denise L. Moss-Fritch
 
  
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Bill Briggs
 Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 6:18 PM
 To: framers@lists.frameusers.com
 Subject: Adobe User Experience Recruiter
 
 Yesterday I received a note from this User Experience 
 Recruiter at Adobe.
 The originating address looks legit. Did any one else get 
 this note? Is Marisa Lenhardt a legit entity at Adobe? If so, 
 I may take her up on the offer to contribute.
 
  - web
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Adobe "User Experience Recruiter"

[Dov Isaacs]

Marisa Lenhardt is indeed an Adobe employee and has 
the title "User Experience Recruiter."

- Dov 

> -Original Message-
> From: framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com 
> [mailto:framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com]
>  On Behalf Of Denise L. Moss-Fritch
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 6:32 PM
> To: 'Bill Briggs'; framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: RE: Adobe "User Experience Recruiter"
> 
> Yes, I received an email too and responded to the survey 
> particularly because my earlier participation with Adobe (in 
> San Jose) was mentioned in the email.
> 
> Best,
> 
>  Denise L. Moss-Fritch
> 
>  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Briggs
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 6:18 PM
> To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: Adobe "User Experience Recruiter"
> 
> Yesterday I received a note from this "User Experience 
> Recruiter" at Adobe.
> The originating address looks legit. Did any one else get 
> this note? Is Marisa Lenhardt a legit entity at Adobe? If so, 
> I may take her up on the offer to contribute.
> 
>  - web
> 

RE: Printing CE character tcaron to PDF

[Dov Isaacs]

LJK,

I am very sorry if you think that I was trying to put you
in your place whatever that means.

What I was explaining in my response was that the Adobe
Knowledgebase article to which you referred
http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/324972.html
has nothing to do with lapses in CE characters printing,
but rather a generic problem with any arbitrary text 
failing to print.

It is very important to understand that the CE characters
in question are not officially supported in FrameMaker's
character set. (I am NOT applauding that lack of support
and really hope that some future version of FrameMaker
fully supports Unicode!)

Many users have been successful at coercing FrameMaker to
support CE and other character sets via Windows code page
hackery which effectively occurs when you use other
print drivers. The Adobe PDF PostScript print driver 
instance reports no fonts to the operating system and
that may be why the CE characters specifically do not
print.

- Dov
 

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 7:52 AM
 To: Dov Isaacs; Framers@FrameUsers.com
 Subject: RE: Printing CE character tcaron to PDF
 
 Well, I guess you put me in my place, eh? Nice job. I'll be 
 sure not to try to guess why Framemaker is screwing up any more.
 
 By the way, in all that vituperative prose, did you actually 
 explain why certain CE characters, which print properly, do 
 not appear in PDF documents?
 
 Your explanation was a bit obtuse to me. Perhaps you could 
 dumb it down 
 for those of us who do not possess the knowledge.
 
 
 ljk
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: What do you use for PDF Generation?

[Dov Isaacs]

Hint, hint ... I am just a dumb engineer here at Adobe.
I don't set the prices or have any influence over those
issues.

By the way, when dealing with Wurd documents, even with
PDF, be very careful that the properties don't migrate
to the PDF file. When you use the PDFMaker facility of
Acrobat some of that information in the Wurd document
does make its way into the Description part of 
Document Properties  !

- Dov 

 -Original Message-
 From: Syed Zaeem Hosain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 1:36 PM
 To: Dov Isaacs
 Cc: Ron Teplitz; Framers@frameusers.com
 Subject: Re: What do you use for PDF Generation?
 
 Hi, Dov.
 
 Dov Isaacs wrote:
  A word of advice. Before you go loading up on el'cheapo
  $9.95 PDF creation software, make sure that what it generates
  is really kosher. We quite often see problems when these
  PDF files escape the environment in which they were created
  and attempts are made to either combine them with other PDF
  files in Acrobat or to place them in FrameMaker, InDesign,
  or elsewhere. Problems often manifest themselves as funky font
  definitions with improper names and encodings that cause
  chaos when attempts are made to repurpose those PDF files.
  Just because those other employees are not publishing vast
  tomes doesn't mean that they should have shoddy tools.
 
 Good points, yes!
 
 We have some people who create print-quality documents for which
 we need to be sure that the PDF's are very high quality. For these
 folks, we have Acrobat Pro installed on their systems - the right
 way to go for sure!
 
 It is the rest of the folks, who send out docs and files outside
 our company for reading or review and other purposes, that we want
 to have in PDF format. The purpose is to avoid having original
 documents out there. The policy was created because we got burned
 by properties information in a Word doc recently - an older doc
 was used to create a new one and ... oops!
 
 None of the PDF's from these other employees is likely to be used
 in situations where they might cause problems like you mention.
 So, I am fairly confident (but keeping my fingers crossed till I
 test some more) that we should be okay with something like PDF995.
 
 But, I will definitely try things out in detail before proceeding ...
 
 Of course, if Adobe Elements were a LOT lower in price for multiple
 copies, or the server version of Acrobat was not so crazily over-
 priced for our simple needs (less than 50 employees total!), we
 would not be looking at cheaper alternatives. Hint, hint! :)
 
 Thanks for the input regardless! It is appreciated.
 
 Z
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: Hollow bullets?

[Dov Isaacs]

The hollow bullet appears to be taken from Courier New.
It is also in Times New Roman and Arial as well (not on
the Mac version of these fonts, though) as Unicode 25CB.
It is also in Adobe's OpenType version of Courier, 
Courier Std.

However, without Unicode support, you cannot access that
character from within FrameMaker. Sorry! You'll need to
find a font that has it as a symbol in the lower 256
and that maps to FrameMaker.

- Dov


 -Original Message-
 From: Guy K. Haas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 3:42 PM
 To: framers@frameusers.com
 Cc: Dov Isaacs
 Subject: Hollow bullets?
 
 Does anybody out there, including the dumb engineer, have 
 any advice on how to get FrameMaker 7.2 to have the same 
 three levels of bullets that Wurd produces natively?
 
 We do our FrameMaker on WindowsXP and produce PDFs so far, 
 though we may well get into WebWorks and online help after a while.
 
 Solid black circles above the text baseline for the outermost 
 level are the FrameMaker norm.
 
 Those second-level hollow bullets (black perimeter, white 
 interior, above the text baseline) are not in the fonts we 
 use, nor the character tables in the FrameMaker 
 documentation, nor in Wingdings, nor WebDings.
 
 The third-level would be en-dashes or hyphens.
 
 But without access to the hollow bullet, I'm stuck with only 
 two levels: 
 the solid dots and the en-dash or hyphen.
 
 Do we need to buy a font?  (Could I just buy a vowel?)
 
 --Guy K. Haas
Software Exegete in Silicon Valley
 
 
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Printing CE character tcaron to PDF

[Dov Isaacs]

LJK,

I am very sorry if you think that I was trying to "put you
in your place" whatever that means.

What I was explaining in my response was that the Adobe
Knowledgebase article to which you referred
<http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/324972.html>
has nothing to do with lapses in CE characters printing,
but rather a generic problem with any arbitrary text 
failing to print.

It is very important to understand that the CE characters
in question are not officially supported in FrameMaker's
character set. (I am NOT applauding that lack of support
and really hope that some future version of FrameMaker
fully supports Unicode!)

Many users have been successful at coercing FrameMaker to
"support" CE and other character sets via Windows code page
hackery which effectively occurs when you use "other"
print drivers. The Adobe PDF PostScript print driver 
instance reports "no fonts" to the operating system and
that may be why the CE characters specifically do not
print.

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: Laura_J_Kirk at bd.com [mailto:Laura_J_Kirk at bd.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 7:52 AM
> To: Dov Isaacs; Framers at FrameUsers.com
> Subject: RE: Printing CE character tcaron to PDF
> 
> Well, I guess you put me in my place, eh? Nice job. I'll be 
> sure not to try to guess why Framemaker is screwing up any more.
> 
> By the way, in all that vituperative prose, did you actually 
> explain why certain CE characters, which print properly, do 
> not appear in PDF documents?
> 
> Your explanation was a bit obtuse to me. Perhaps you could 
> "dumb it down" 
> for those of us who do not possess "the knowledge."
> 
> 
> ljk

Printing CE character tcaron to PDF

[Dov Isaacs]

Further information pointed out to me by my friend
Sarah O'Keefe of Scriptorium Publishing Services.

The latest update of FrameMaker 7.2, p158, provides
support for some additional characters when using
the code page mapping hackery:

The following is from the ReadmeForPatchp158.txt file
accompanying the update:


* Following is the list of characters added with their corresponding shortcuts. 
* Character with Code   CodePageAnsi Code   
ShortcutStandard Name
Hex Unicode Code

* 0403 ?\xa1  Windows1251(Cyrillic) 0129Control+q ! 
CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER GJE
* 040F ?\xde  Windows1251(Cyrillic )0143Control+q ^ 
CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER DZHE
* 0452 ?\xdf  Windows1251(Cyrillic) 0144Control+q _ 
CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DJE
* 045C ?\xfd  Windows1251(Cyrillic) 0157Control+q } 
CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER KJE
* 0179 ?\xde  Windows 1250(Central Europe) 0143 Control+q ^ 
LATIN CAPITAL LETTER Z WITH ACUTE
* 0165 ?\xfd  Windows 1250(Central Europe) 0157 Control+q } LATIN SMALL 
LETTER T WITH CARON
* 00B8 ?\xde  Windows 1257(Baltic)  0143Control+q ^ 
CEDILLA
* 00AF ?\xfd  Windows 1257(Baltic)  0157Control+q } 
MACRON

You need to use an appropriate font to display these characters correctly. For 
using characters from, lets say, Cyrillic code page, you needs to use the 
corresponding cyrillic font, e.g., Times New Roman CYR. 

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: frameusers.com On Behalf Of Dov Isaacs
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:53 AM
> To: Laura_J_Kirk at bd.com; Framers at FrameUsers.com
> Subject: RE: Printing CE character tcaron to PDF
> Importance: High
> 
> LJK,
> 
> I am very sorry if you think that I was trying to "put you
> in your place" whatever that means.
> 
> What I was explaining in my response was that the Adobe
> Knowledgebase article to which you referred
> <http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/324972.html>
> has nothing to do with lapses in CE characters printing,
> but rather a generic problem with any arbitrary text 
> failing to print.
> 
> It is very important to understand that the CE characters
> in question are not officially supported in FrameMaker's
> character set. (I am NOT applauding that lack of support
> and really hope that some future version of FrameMaker
> fully supports Unicode!)
> 
> Many users have been successful at coercing FrameMaker to
> "support" CE and other character sets via Windows code page
> hackery which effectively occurs when you use "other"
> print drivers. The Adobe PDF PostScript print driver 
> instance reports "no fonts" to the operating system and
> that may be why the CE characters specifically do not
> print.
> 
>   - Dov

> > -Original Message-
> > From: Laura_J_Kirk at bd.com [mailto:Laura_J_Kirk at bd.com] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 7:52 AM
> > To: Dov Isaacs; Framers at FrameUsers.com
> > Subject: RE: Printing CE character tcaron to PDF
> > 
> > Well, I guess you put me in my place, eh? Nice job. I'll be 
> > sure not to try to guess why Framemaker is screwing up any more.
> > 
> > By the way, in all that vituperative prose, did you actually 
> > explain why certain CE characters, which print properly, do 
> > not appear in PDF documents?
> > 
> > Your explanation was a bit obtuse to me. Perhaps you could 
> > "dumb it down" 
> > for those of us who do not possess "the knowledge."
> > 
> > 
> > ljk

What do you use for PDF Generation?

[Dov Isaacs]

A word of advice. Before you go loading up on el'cheapo
$9.95 PDF creation software, make sure that what it generates
is really kosher. We quite often see problems when these
PDF files "escape" the environment in which they were created
and attempts are made to either combine them with other PDF
files in Acrobat or to place them in FrameMaker, InDesign,
or elsewhere. Problems often manifest themselves as funky font
definitions with improper names and encodings that cause
chaos when attempts are made to repurpose those PDF files.
Just because those other employees are not publishing vast
tomes doesn't mean that they should have shoddy tools.

- Dov



> -Original Message-
> From: framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com 
> [mailto:framers-bounces+isaacs=adobe.com at lists.frameusers.com]
>  On Behalf Of Syed Zaeem Hosain
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 10:09 AM
> To: Ron Teplitz
> Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: Re: What do you use for PDF Generation?
> 
> Ron Teplitz wrote:
> > Every copy of Frame I've seen for a long time included Acrobat 
> > Distiller, going back to at least FM 6.0. Distiller does 
> all of what 
> > many folks need in the way of PDF generation. What version 
> of Frame do 
> > you have? Have you checked to see if your distribution 
> included Distiller?
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Ron
> 
> Oh, I should have been clearer. I definitely use Acrobat Pro 
> 7 for my PDF creation! With output from FrameMaker and all 
> other programs too. :)
> 
> My questions related to the fact that we need to get PDF 
> creation ability for *all* the employees in our company, and 
> the price of Acrobat Pro (or Standard, too) would be very 
> prohibitive. These folks mostly do not use FrameMaker ... 
> most are simply using Word and Excel for their daily stuff.
> 
> Right now, I am leaning towards either Acrobat Elements or 
> PDF995 as the "preferred" solution for this new policy ... 
> those seem to have garnered the most "votes" too, but I do 
> plan on quickly looking at some of the open-source freebie 
> stuff as well.
> 
> What I have tried and did NOT like: PDF-Xchange. This came as 
> a freebie demo with some app that I got, and it simply 
> crashes too often on my system. Not good enough.
> 
> Another one that was still a tad bit too expensive (as an 
> Enterprise total cost) was PDF Convertor 3 from Nuance. I 
> liked it (I use my copy of the PDF to Word convertor on 
> occasion), but the total cost is a bit high.
> 
> This is why PDF995 is leading the pack right now ...
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Z
> 

What do you use for PDF Generation?

[Dov Isaacs]

Hint, hint ... I am just a dumb engineer here at Adobe.
I don't set the prices or have any influence over those
issues.

By the way, when dealing with Wurd documents, even with
PDF, be very careful that the "properties" don't migrate
to the PDF file. When you use the PDFMaker facility of
Acrobat some of that information in the Wurd document
does make its way into the "Description" part of 
"Document Properties"  !

- Dov 

> -Original Message-
> From: Syed Zaeem Hosain [mailto:Syed.Hosain at aeris.net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 1:36 PM
> To: Dov Isaacs
> Cc: Ron Teplitz; Framers at frameusers.com
> Subject: Re: What do you use for PDF Generation?
> 
> Hi, Dov.
> 
> Dov Isaacs wrote:
> > A word of advice. Before you go loading up on el'cheapo
> > $9.95 PDF creation software, make sure that what it generates
> > is really kosher. We quite often see problems when these
> > PDF files "escape" the environment in which they were created
> > and attempts are made to either combine them with other PDF
> > files in Acrobat or to place them in FrameMaker, InDesign,
> > or elsewhere. Problems often manifest themselves as funky font
> > definitions with improper names and encodings that cause
> > chaos when attempts are made to repurpose those PDF files.
> > Just because those other employees are not publishing vast
> > tomes doesn't mean that they should have shoddy tools.
> 
> Good points, yes!
> 
> We have some people who create "print-quality" documents for which
> we need to be sure that the PDF's are very high quality. For these
> folks, we have Acrobat Pro installed on their systems - the "right"
> way to go for sure!
> 
> It is the rest of the folks, who send out docs and files outside
> our company for reading or review and other purposes, that we want
> to have in PDF format. The purpose is to avoid having "original"
> documents out there. The policy was created because we got burned
> by "properties" information in a Word doc recently - an older doc
> was used to create a new one and ... oops!
> 
> None of the PDF's from these other employees is likely to be used
> in situations where they might cause problems like you mention.
> So, I am fairly confident (but keeping my fingers crossed till I
> test some more) that we should be okay with something like PDF995.
> 
> But, I will definitely try things out in detail before proceeding ...
> 
> Of course, if Adobe Elements were a LOT lower in price for multiple
> copies, or the server version of Acrobat was not so crazily over-
> priced for our simple needs (less than 50 employees total!), we
> would not be looking at cheaper alternatives. Hint, hint! :)
> 
> Thanks for the input regardless! It is appreciated.
> 
> Z
> 

Hollow bullets?

[Dov Isaacs]

The "hollow bullet" appears to be taken from Courier New.
It is also in Times New Roman and Arial as well (not on
the Mac version of these fonts, though) as Unicode 25CB.
It is also in Adobe's OpenType version of Courier, 
Courier Std.

However, without Unicode support, you cannot access that
character from within FrameMaker. Sorry! You'll need to
find a font that has it as a symbol in the "lower 256"
and that maps to FrameMaker.

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: Guy K. Haas [mailto:guy at cliveden.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 3:42 PM
> To: framers at frameusers.com
> Cc: Dov Isaacs
> Subject: Hollow bullets?
> 
> Does anybody out there, including the "dumb engineer," have 
> any advice on how to get FrameMaker 7.2 to have the same 
> three levels of bullets that "Wurd" produces natively?
> 
> We do our FrameMaker on WindowsXP and produce PDFs so far, 
> though we may well get into WebWorks and online help after a while.
> 
> Solid black circles above the text baseline for the outermost 
> level are the FrameMaker norm.
> 
> Those second-level hollow bullets (black perimeter, white 
> interior, above the text baseline) are not in the fonts we 
> use, nor the character tables in the FrameMaker 
> documentation, nor in Wingdings, nor WebDings.
> 
> The third-level would be en-dashes or hyphens.
> 
> But without access to the hollow bullet, I'm stuck with only 
> two levels: 
> the solid dots and the en-dash or hyphen.
> 
> Do we need to buy a font?  (Could I just buy a vowel?)
> 
> --Guy K. Haas
>Software Exegete in Silicon Valley
> 
> 
> 

Need Help Mac to PC

[Dov Isaacs]

> -Original Message-
> From: frameusers.com 
>  On Behalf Of Harro de Jong
> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 3:16 AM
> To: Mary Haas; framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: RE: Need Help Mac to PC
> 
> Mary Haas wrote :
> ...
> > 
> > Fonts: On the Mac I use only Adobe Postscript fonts (most often
> > Helvetica family) and have never had any problems.  What kind of
> > fonts should I buy for the PC that will always be reliable and
> > problem-free for printing and web? Font technology has changed since
> > my Mac fonts were purchased and my knowledge is not up-to-date.
> 
> Your best bet is to find Windows versions of the same fonts, or to
> create those yourself using a font creation program like 
> Fontographer. 
>
> > 
> > Acrobat issues:  I currently use Acrobat 5 on the Mac. Are there
> > issues with newer Acrobat versions, and which version will work with
> > Frame 7.0 on PC? 
> 
> Acrobat 7 works well with Frame 7, I'm not sure Acrobat 5 supports all
> the features (mainly the File->Save as PDF command in FM). 
> 

I would most STRONGLY urge you not to even consider use
of programs such as Fontographer to "convert" fonts from
Macintosh to Windows. First issue is license. Many end user
license agreements actually prohibit you from performing
that type of conversion (Adobe's font licenses do not have
such a prohibition). But more importantly, even if you do 
know how to use a program such as Fontographer or Fontlab 
(and the learning curve is exceptionally steep on these),
these programs when used as "converters" are lossy, meaning
that the resultant "converted" fonts will be slightly 
different in both design and metrics. Bottom line is that
if exactly matching the fonts is important to you AND
your time is worth something, go out and license the
Windows versions of those fonts. By the way, you should
also consider OpenType fonts if you are changing fonts
anyway.

The connection between the latest Windows version of
FrameMaker and Acrobat is with Acrobat 6 and 7. If you
are making the investment in moving platforms, start
off without a hand tied behind your back using old
software versions.

- Dov

Printing CE character tcaron to PDF

[Dov Isaacs]

The Adobe Knowledgebase article you refer to has nothing
to do with any problems associated with inability to print
CE characters. And it does not suggest that you can solve
anything by "downloading the current version of PostScript
from Adobe and installing it on your computer."

The article in question refers to a known problem in which
under certain circumstances portions of text on printed
pages or PDF pages simply do not show up. This problem is
not confined to any CE languages.

Furthermore, the article refers to the PostScript print
driver which is very different from "PostScript" itself.
Generally speaking, the problem referred to can most often
be masked by modification of the resolution setting for the
PostScript printer driver instance in question -- in the
case of creation of PDF, the "Adobe PDF" PostScript printer
driver instance.

- Dov



> -Original Message-
> From: frameusers.com 
>  On Behalf Of Laura_J_Kirk at bd.com
> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 8:38 AM
> To: Framers at frameusers.com
> Subject: Re: Printing CE character tcaron to PDF
> 
> I have fought the CE font battle for many months. I found a 
> Knowledge Base article on Adobe.com that suggests this 
> problem can be resolved by downloading the current version of 
> Postscript from Adobe and installing it on your computer. 
> (Try URL http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/324972.html if 
> you wish to view the article yourself.)
> 
> I did this, and have been able to create PDFs containing all 
> CE characters. The annoying part is, I have to choose 
> different Postscript printers for different languages, one 
> printer for Hungarian, a different one for Czech. Still, once 
> I figured out which printer to use, the results are consistent.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> ljk
> 
> framers-bounces+laura_j_kirk=bd.com at lists.frameusers.com wrote on
> 05/19/2006 11:03:54 AM:
> 
> > Hello all,
> > 
> > we managed to get the proper CE characters in FrameMaker (XML), but 
> > now the tcaron won't print to PDF. It prints to our postscript 
> > printer, but in the pdf there is an empty space. We print to adobe 
> > pdf (Acr. 6) printer. What can be the cause it won't print? Used 
> > font is HelveticaNeue55CE
> > 
> > thanks!
>