--- "Carol J. Elkins"
wrote:
> Good post, Dan. However, I'm trying to visualize
your
> statement, "...clicking on this button produced a
> menu of links to major subject areas..." The
> button part I understand, the menu of links I'm
> struggling with. A popup menu? If so, could you tell
> me ho
At 11:47 AM -0700 4/26/06, Daniel Emory wrote:
>--- "Carol J. Elkins"
>wrote:
>> Good post, Dan. However, I'm trying to visualize
>your
>> statement, "...clicking on this button produced a
>> menu of links to major subject areas..." The
>> button part I understand, the menu of links I'm
>> struggl
At 1:00 PM -0700 4/26/06, FIONA HANINGTON wrote:
>I would *love* to see a sample of this in action - does anyone have one that
>they would be willing to share with me?
I'm sending you a current work in progress that uses this feature.
- web
Hi Bill,
I agree wholeheartedly, but it's a shame that only FrameMaker users can
benefit. As Dan said, it would be nice if all of FrameMaker's hypertext
goodies would convert to PDF.
Rick
> Popups in FrameMaker are a treat. I made a little book for myself once (it
> had all sorts of stuff in
Yeah, it would be a really great thing to have all of FrameMaker's hypertext
capabilities survive to PDF. But we'll see a plethora of tiny little
Photoshop-style pallets before we'll see something useful like what Dan was
talking about. Makes you wonder what drives the decision mechanism (if the
Hi, Bill, Dan, and all:
At 8:46 PM -0300 4/26/06, Bill Briggs wrote:
>Yeah, it would be a really great thing to have all of FrameMaker's
>hypertext capabilities survive to PDF. But we'll see a plethora of
>tiny little Photoshop-style pallets before we'll see something
>useful like what Dan was
At 9:18 PM -0500 4/26/06, Peter Gold wrote:
>Hi, Bill, Dan, and all:
>
>At 8:46 PM -0300 4/26/06, Bill Briggs wrote:
>>Yeah, it would be a really great thing to have all of FrameMaker's hypertext
>>capabilities survive to PDF. But we'll see a plethora of tiny little
>>Photoshop-style pallets befo
At 7:14 AM -0400 4/27/06, Batsford, Steve wrote:
>Rick,
>
>My sentiment exactly.
>The popups and all of the available links SOUND cool. But in the real
>world all my content to my end users is in PDF.
There used to be a product called FrameViewer, and you could view other
people's FrameMaker doc
Hi, Bill:
At 8:23 AM -0300 4/27/06, Bill Briggs wrote:
>At 7:14 AM -0400 4/27/06, Batsford, Steve wrote:
>>Rick,
>>
>>My sentiment exactly.
>>The popups and all of the available links SOUND cool. But in the real
>>world all my content to my end users is in PDF.
>
> There used to be a product call
If I remember correctly, there was a smaller footprint program called
FrameReader that could be used to view FrameMaker documents. I think it was
less expensive than FrameViewer.
Rick
> FrameViewer was FrameMaker, just crippled to prevent authoring. It was
> expensive to purchase for just a pr
On 27 Apr 2006, at 03:18, Peter Gold wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if you'd find it by digging in Wikipedia, but to put your
> point in context, it helps to know that in the early days of unix and
> FrameMaker, as with the early days of CP/M, each hardware manufacturer
> had a proprietary version of t
At 6:42 AM -0500 4/27/06, Peter Gold wrote:
>Hi, Bill:
>
>At 8:23 AM -0300 4/27/06, Bill Briggs wrote:
>>At 7:14 AM -0400 4/27/06, Batsford, Steve wrote:
>>>Rick,
>>>
>>>My sentiment exactly.
>>>The popups and all of the available links SOUND cool. But in the real
>>>world all my content to my end
At 8:17 AM -0400 4/27/06, Rick Quatro wrote:
>If I remember correctly, there was a smaller footprint program
>called FrameReader that could be used to view FrameMaker documents.
>I think it was less expensive than FrameViewer.
I think it was FV with even more FrameMaker stuff removed. As Acrobat
>> NeXT even bundled FrameMaker 3.x with its machines.
>
>I don't remember FrameMaker being bundled with NeXT boxes. Was it a
>trial version? We bought all of our licenses (could have been a site
>license). Should I call tech support?
>
>I remember the word processor Write Now was bundled.
It w
--- "Carol J. Elkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Good post, Dan. However, I'm trying to visualize
your
> statement, "...clicking on this button produced a
> menu of links to major subject areas..." The
> button part I understand, the menu of links I'm
> struggling with. A popup menu? If so, cou
At 11:47 AM -0700 4/26/06, Daniel Emory wrote:
>--- "Carol J. Elkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> Good post, Dan. However, I'm trying to visualize
>your
>> statement, "...clicking on this button produced a
>> menu of links to major subject areas..." The
>> button part I understand, the menu of l
At 1:00 PM -0700 4/26/06, FIONA HANINGTON wrote:
>I would *love* to see a sample of this in action - does anyone have one that
>they would be willing to share with me?
I'm sending you a current work in progress that uses this feature.
- web
___
You
Hi Bill,
I agree wholeheartedly, but it's a shame that only FrameMaker users can
benefit. As Dan said, it would be nice if all of FrameMaker's hypertext
goodies would convert to PDF.
Rick
Popups in FrameMaker are a treat. I made a little book for myself once (it
had all sorts of stuff in it
Yeah, it would be a really great thing to have all of FrameMaker's hypertext
capabilities survive to PDF. But we'll see a plethora of tiny little
Photoshop-style pallets before we'll see something useful like what Dan was
talking about. Makes you wonder what drives the decision mechanism (if the
Hi, Bill, Dan, and all:
At 8:46 PM -0300 4/26/06, Bill Briggs wrote:
Yeah, it would be a really great thing to have all of FrameMaker's
hypertext capabilities survive to PDF. But we'll see a plethora of
tiny little Photoshop-style pallets before we'll see something
useful like what Dan was tal
At 9:18 PM -0500 4/26/06, Peter Gold wrote:
>Hi, Bill, Dan, and all:
>
>At 8:46 PM -0300 4/26/06, Bill Briggs wrote:
>>Yeah, it would be a really great thing to have all of FrameMaker's hypertext
>>capabilities survive to PDF. But we'll see a plethora of tiny little
>>Photoshop-style pallets befo
At 7:14 AM -0400 4/27/06, Batsford, Steve wrote:
>Rick,
>
>My sentiment exactly.
>The popups and all of the available links SOUND cool. But in the real
>world all my content to my end users is in PDF.
There used to be a product called FrameViewer, and you could view other
people's FrameMaker doc
Hi, Bill:
At 8:23 AM -0300 4/27/06, Bill Briggs wrote:
At 7:14 AM -0400 4/27/06, Batsford, Steve wrote:
Rick,
My sentiment exactly.
The popups and all of the available links SOUND cool. But in the real
world all my content to my end users is in PDF.
There used to be a product called FrameVi
If I remember correctly, there was a smaller footprint program called
FrameReader that could be used to view FrameMaker documents. I think it was
less expensive than FrameViewer.
Rick
FrameViewer was FrameMaker, just crippled to prevent authoring. It was
expensive to purchase for just a produ
On 27 Apr 2006, at 03:18, Peter Gold wrote:
I'm not sure if you'd find it by digging in Wikipedia, but to put your
point in context, it helps to know that in the early days of unix and
FrameMaker, as with the early days of CP/M, each hardware manufacturer
had a proprietary version of the OS,
At 6:42 AM -0500 4/27/06, Peter Gold wrote:
>Hi, Bill:
>
>At 8:23 AM -0300 4/27/06, Bill Briggs wrote:
>>At 7:14 AM -0400 4/27/06, Batsford, Steve wrote:
>>>Rick,
>>>
>>>My sentiment exactly.
>>>The popups and all of the available links SOUND cool. But in the real
>>>world all my content to my end
At 8:17 AM -0400 4/27/06, Rick Quatro wrote:
If I remember correctly, there was a smaller footprint program
called FrameReader that could be used to view FrameMaker documents.
I think it was less expensive than FrameViewer.
I think it was FV with even more FrameMaker stuff removed. As Acrobat
NeXT even bundled FrameMaker 3.x with its machines.
I don't remember FrameMaker being bundled with NeXT boxes. Was it a
trial version? We bought all of our licenses (could have been a site
license). Should I call tech support?
I remember the word processor Write Now was bundled.
It was Fr
David Levy wrote:
> I'm at the point where, if a client wants the work done in
> Word, I build it in FM, PDF it, and then use an OCR program
> to convert it to Word. The results are better than FM's
> "Save as" feature.
OCR??? The PDF contains *real words*, not an *image* of the
words! Why
Hi, Richard
Combs, Richard wrote:
> David Levy wrote:
>> I'm at the point where, if a client wants the work done in
>> Word, I build it in FM, PDF it, and then use an OCR program
>> to convert it to Word. The results are better than FM's
>> "Save as" feature.
>
> OCR??? The PDF contains *r
Syed Zaeem Hosain wrote:
> Hmmm ... I would be surprised if he is using a true "image"
> OCR program. I suspect a mis-speak! :)
Perhaps you're right. But in fact, there's no _other_ kind of OCR
program. OCR stands for "optical character recognition." It's the
process of converting an _image_ or
Hi, Richard
Combs, Richard wrote:
> Syed Zaeem Hosain wrote:
>
>> Hmmm ... I would be surprised if he is using a true "image"
>> OCR program. I suspect a mis-speak! :)
>
> Perhaps you're right. But in fact, there's no _other_ kind of OCR
> program. OCR stands for "optical character recognitio
David Levy wrote:
> I'm at the point where, if a client wants the work done in
> Word, I build it in FM, PDF it, and then use an OCR program
> to convert it to Word. The results are better than FM's
> "Save as" feature.
OCR??? The PDF contains *real words*, not an *image* of the
words! Wh
Hi, Richard
Combs, Richard wrote:
David Levy wrote:
I'm at the point where, if a client wants the work done in
Word, I build it in FM, PDF it, and then use an OCR program
to convert it to Word. The results are better than FM's
"Save as" feature.
OCR??? The PDF contains *real words*, not
Syed Zaeem Hosain wrote:
> Hmmm ... I would be surprised if he is using a true "image"
> OCR program. I suspect a mis-speak! :)
Perhaps you're right. But in fact, there's no _other_ kind of OCR
program. OCR stands for "optical character recognition." It's the
process of converting an _image_ o
Hi, Richard
Combs, Richard wrote:
Syed Zaeem Hosain wrote:
Hmmm ... I would be surprised if he is using a true "image"
OCR program. I suspect a mis-speak! :)
Perhaps you're right. But in fact, there's no _other_ kind of OCR
program. OCR stands for "optical character recognition." It's the
p
Combs, Richard
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 12:37 PM
To: David Levy; Framers List; Free Framers List
Subject: Converting FM to Word (was RE: Creating Popup menus in FrameMaker)
David Levy wrote:
> I'm at the point where, if a client wants the work done in Word, I
> build it in FM,
Free Framers List
Subject: Converting FM to Word (was RE: Creating Popup menus in FrameMaker)
David Levy wrote:
> I'm at the point where, if a client wants the work done in Word, I
> build it in FM, PDF it, and then use an OCR program to convert it to
> Word. The results are better
38 matches
Mail list logo
