Highlighted

FrameMaker 8: Save As MIF 7.0 as default

New Here ,
Jan 30, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I'm using good OLD dzbatcher to automate FrameMaker book builds.  Part of the build requires that I save a FrameMaker 8 FM file to MIF 7.0.

FrameMaker 8 provides two save-as MIF options: MIF 8.0 and MIF 7.0, where MIF 8.0 is the default.

Does anyone know how to make MIF 7.0 the save-as default?  Failing that, how to remove the MIF 8.0 save-as option which I don't need).

Views

368

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more

FrameMaker 8: Save As MIF 7.0 as default

New Here ,
Jan 30, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I'm using good OLD dzbatcher to automate FrameMaker book builds.  Part of the build requires that I save a FrameMaker 8 FM file to MIF 7.0.

FrameMaker 8 provides two save-as MIF options: MIF 8.0 and MIF 7.0, where MIF 8.0 is the default.

Does anyone know how to make MIF 7.0 the save-as default?  Failing that, how to remove the MIF 8.0 save-as option which I don't need).

Views

369

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Jan 30, 2019 0
Adobe Community Professional ,
Jan 31, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I can't help you with your question, I'm afraid, but I am curious. Why do you want to save to MIF 7 if you're using FM 8? As I recall, one of the things that was new in FM 8 was the addition of unicode support, and I think you lose that if you save backwards.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Jan 31, 2019 0
New Here ,
Jan 31, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Welcome to the rabbit hole......

Without going into brain-tumor-inducing detail, I'll just say that we have a very old propriety documentation build and delivery system.  The XML generated from FM 8 and later versions contains a "bug" that Adobe refuses to address.  The last "clean" XML produced by a version of FrameMaker was FM 7.

So we have to downgrade to FM 7 in order to produce usable XML.  However, MIF 8.0 contains unicode characters that don't translate well in FM 7 and the resulting XML.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Jan 31, 2019 0
Adobe Employee ,
Jan 31, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi gordonf44886270 ,

The XML generated from FM 8 and later versions contains a "bug" that Adobe refuses to address.  The last "clean" XML produced by a version of FrameMaker was FM 7.

That's a surprising statement in many ways, but especially considering the large number of companies worldwide working very successfully with FrameMaker and XML.

Could you please let me know which bug that could be? I would love to look at it and check if it is actually still present in one of the newer versions. Also, I'd like to know who at Adobe has told you that we would "refuse" to address this bug, whatever this bug might be.

Kind regards,

Stefan Gentz
Worldwide Technical Communication Evangelist

Connect with us:

Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | YouTube | Our Blog | Adobe TCS User Forum

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Jan 31, 2019 1
Adobe Community Professional ,
Jan 31, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I'm so sorry. It sounds like one of Patrick McManus's sequential vortexes.

Good luck. Wish I could help, but the people here are great.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Jan 31, 2019 0
New Here ,
Jan 31, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi Stefan,

Thanks for your interest.  I wish I could provide more detail, but the whole system was designed and setup by my predecessor.  My job is to maintain the system until I can get a more reasonable webworks-based solution in place.  However, from what I understand, the XML from FM 8 introduces a font problem in our code samples.  I guess I could run some experimental builds to provided more color if there was a chance we could get someone at Adobe to address the issue.  Is there?

I'm certain there are a number of ways to approach the problem, such as post-processing the XML output from FM 8, but my plan is to move on to another doc build solution and put the whole mess in the rearview.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Jan 31, 2019 0
New Here ,
Jan 31, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Ok, I did some tests and this is what I see:

Here's a screen shot of some code sample text from the FM 8 GUI. Note the hard returns (Shft-Return) at the end of each line:

FMsource.png

XML generated from code sample in FM 8:

<Code>

<A ID="pgfId-1079399"></A>

(: Add new forests to the configuration :)let $config := admin:forest-create(  $config,   &quot;SampleDB-Forest&quot;,  xdmp:host(), (  ))</Code>

XML generated from code sample in FM 7:

<Code>

<A ID="pgfId-1079399"></A>

(: Add new forests to the configuration

let $config := admin:forest-create(

  $config,

  &quot;SampleDB-Forest&quot;,

  xdmp:host(), (

  ))</Code>

<Code>

Note that the hard returns (Shft-Return) are gone in the FM 8 XML output.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Jan 31, 2019 0
Adobe Community Professional ,
Feb 01, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Not sure we can use your cut n' paste of the xml, as the colon/closed paren gets parsed as a smiley!!

Can you resubmit a screen shot as you did with the FM8 GUI?

However, even without seeing the actual difference in code, I'm confident that the cause lies in your structapps file, and in the definition of your structured application. The structured application tells Fm what to do with specific things, and likely the Fm 8 structured application was not ever configured to do so.

As Stefan mentioned above, many very large organizations, including tech companies like Palo Alto Networks use Fm to work with XML. They wouldn't do that if Fm was incapable of producing XML to represent code.

Also, given the HUGE improvements in structured authoring (not to mention PDF creation and 64-bit processing) since the 2001-2004 versions of FrameMaker, I'd strongly recommend moving to Fm 2019.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Feb 01, 2019 0
New Here ,
Feb 01, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Here's the screenshot:

XML.png

We are using FM in unstructured mode.

We use MIF to "downgrade" from FM 8 to FM 7, which then produces the above XML.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Feb 01, 2019 0
Adobe Employee ,
Feb 01, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Okay, problem understood 🙂

It's not a bug in FM 8 or higher. It's just that FM8 and higher do proper whitespace handling according to the XML specification, which FM7 did not to full extend. Or, the bug is there in FM7 and lower and not in FM8 and higher 😉

That said, just add the xml:space attribute to your code element in the document (XML) and give it the value "preserve":

From:

<Code>

To:

<Code xml:space="preserve">

That will solve the problem and is actually the correct way to do it in the XML world 🙂

Cheers!

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Feb 01, 2019 0
New Here ,
Feb 19, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi Stefan,

Sorry for not responding earlier, but ya know....

Unfortunately, the <Code xml:space="preserve"> workaround doesn't work.  After the file is saved to XML, all of the line returns are gone.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Feb 19, 2019 0
Adobe Community Professional ,
Feb 01, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Your question is about MIF standards, but your problem seems to be with XML export.

Is there a reason you're using MIF to somehow produce your XML?

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Feb 01, 2019 0