Microsoft Publisher - Pub 2003 convert back to Pub 2000?

Author

Pub 2003 convert back to Pub 2000?

KJAB

2004-03-30, 9:34 pm

I have a friend who has been using Publisher 2000 to
create and maintain her website. She recently "upgraded"
to Publisher 2003 and started to convert her Pub 2000
pages over and is upset that nothing is working the "same
way" as Pub 2000. I realize after reading all of these
forums and most of the FAQs at www.davidbartosik.com that
2000 and 2003 are VERY DIFFERENT.

My question is this... until I can get her trained and
understanding the differences so she can use Pub 2003, is
there any way to reconvert the files back down to Pub 2000
so she can continue updting her web site?

I also read in a couple of the posts on here that Pub 2003
was NOT created to design web sites. If this is true,
should she not try to upgrade it again and continue using
Pub 2000? I appreciate all assistance and my advance
apologies if this was already asked somewhere and I missed
it when reviewing posts and responses here.

Thanks!

David Bartosik - MS MVP

2004-03-30, 9:34 pm

Since a publisher web site is fully self-contained in the web publication
(.pub file) entity there is not much to it. I think you are probably making
it more complicated then it is.
Just delete all the web site files you have currently, open the pub file in
whatever version you want and recreate the web site files.

The only minor hiccup is that the 2003/2002 pub file is different from a
2000 pub file.

If the 2000 pub file was saved off (always recommended!) before it was
opened and saved (hence converted) in 2003, then just open that original
2000 file up in 2000 and go with it.
Otherwise you have to 'save as' the 2003 pub file with 'file type' .pub
2000.

The key point to remember is that the .pub file is totally different from
the site files (.htm), and that the site is fully contained in the .pub
file.
You can blow the site files away at any time as long as you have your .pub
file to create them again.

--
David Bartosik - MS MVP
for Publisher help:
www.davidbartosik.com
enter to win Pub 2003:
www.davidbartosik.com/giveaway.aspx

"KJAB" <kbaldwin@dungarvin.com> wrote in message
news:131ec01c411d0$70d00fd0$a101280a@phx.gbl...
> I have a friend who has been using Publisher 2000 to
> create and maintain her website. She recently "upgraded"
> to Publisher 2003 and started to convert her Pub 2000
> pages over and is upset that nothing is working the "same
> way" as Pub 2000. I realize after reading all of these
> forums and most of the FAQs at www.davidbartosik.com that
> 2000 and 2003 are VERY DIFFERENT.
>
> My question is this... until I can get her trained and
> understanding the differences so she can use Pub 2003, is
> there any way to reconvert the files back down to Pub 2000
> so she can continue updting her web site?
>
> I also read in a couple of the posts on here that Pub 2003
> was NOT created to design web sites. If this is true,
> should she not try to upgrade it again and continue using
> Pub 2000? I appreciate all assistance and my advance
> apologies if this was already asked somewhere and I missed
> it when reviewing posts and responses here.
>
> Thanks!

DavidF

2004-03-30, 9:34 pm

In addition to what David said, you CAN have both Pub 2000 and 2003 on the
same computer...just install to different folders. Publisher 2003 has some
features that are superior to Publisher 2000, but personally I feel
Publisher 2000 is the better choice for web sites because of the simpler
code and smaller file size. I do wish Publisher 2000 had pixels as a
measurement unit, and supported horizontal nav bars, but I have found work
arounds for that...DavidF

"David Bartosik - MS MVP" <dbartosik@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:Of0$m1dEEHA.4016@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Since a publisher web site is fully self-contained in the web publication
> (.pub file) entity there is not much to it. I think you are probably
making
> it more complicated then it is.
> Just delete all the web site files you have currently, open the pub file
in
> whatever version you want and recreate the web site files.
>
> The only minor hiccup is that the 2003/2002 pub file is different from a
> 2000 pub file.
>
> If the 2000 pub file was saved off (always recommended!) before it was
> opened and saved (hence converted) in 2003, then just open that original
> 2000 file up in 2000 and go with it.
> Otherwise you have to 'save as' the 2003 pub file with 'file type' .pub
> 2000.
>
> The key point to remember is that the .pub file is totally different from
> the site files (.htm), and that the site is fully contained in the .pub
> file.
> You can blow the site files away at any time as long as you have your .pub
> file to create them again.
>
> --
> David Bartosik - MS MVP
> for Publisher help:
> www.davidbartosik.com
> enter to win Pub 2003:
> www.davidbartosik.com/giveaway.aspx
>
> "KJAB" <kbaldwin@dungarvin.com> wrote in message
> news:131ec01c411d0$70d00fd0$a101280a@phx.gbl...
>
>

KJAB

2004-03-30, 9:35 pm

Okay... we got the website back up. Part of the issue,
for a reason I don't really understand, is that her host
had to change the recognition of the "home" page from
being index.html to index.htm even though I thought it
would recognize both. Once they changed that, it was up.

Now, however, there are additional problems. For example,
in the old version of Publisher, she could maneuver on her
hard drive in her files to hyperlink to PDF docs, and it
would upload and transition those links smoothly. Now,
however, it keeps the link as a file:// link on her hard
drive instead of converting it to the file online.

Additionally, she recently lost all of her fonts. When we
first published it all was well, but as she was fixing
items, the last time she published the .htm files to the
Internet, her fonts are all gone and her logo is gone.
Ideas?

I appreciate the earlier response and help. Any futher
guidance is also VERY much appreciated. :)

>-----Original Message-----
>Since a publisher web site is fully self-contained in the
web publication
>(.pub file) entity there is not much to it. I think you
are probably making
>it more complicated then it is.
>Just delete all the web site files you have currently,
open the pub file in
>whatever version you want and recreate the web site files.
>
>The only minor hiccup is that the 2003/2002 pub file is
different from a
>2000 pub file.
>
>If the 2000 pub file was saved off (always recommended!)
before it was
>opened and saved (hence converted) in 2003, then just
open that original
>2000 file up in 2000 and go with it.
>Otherwise you have to 'save as' the 2003 pub file
with 'file type' .pub
>2000.
>
>The key point to remember is that the .pub file is
totally different from
>the site files (.htm), and that the site is fully
contained in the .pub
>file.
>You can blow the site files away at any time as long as
you have your .pub
>file to create them again.
>
>--
>David Bartosik - MS MVP
>for Publisher help:
>www.davidbartosik.com
>enter to win Pub 2003:
>www.davidbartosik.com/giveaway.aspx
>

David Bartosik - MS MVP

2004-03-30, 9:35 pm

> Now, however, there are additional problems. For example,
> in the old version of Publisher, she could maneuver on her
> hard drive in her files to hyperlink to PDF docs, and it
> would upload and transition those links smoothly. Now,
> however, it keeps the link as a file:// link on her hard
> drive instead of converting it to the file online.
>

this was changed in version 2002,
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;296823

you now are responsible for uplaoding external files and linking to their
url.

> Additionally, she recently lost all of her fonts. When we
> first published it all was well, but as she was fixing
> items, the last time she published the .htm files to the
> Internet, her fonts are all gone and her logo is gone.
> Ideas?
>

I have no clue what you may be talking about with the former, but on the
latter if you are not uploading image files that is a common mistake of not
uploading the sub-folder. See my uploading tutorial at
www.davidbartosik.com/ppt.htm

--
David Bartosik - MS MVP
for Publisher help:
www.davidbartosik.com
enter to win Pub 2003:
www.davidbartosik.com/giveaway.aspx

analog@logwell.com

2004-05-29, 11:14 pm

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:05:28 -0800, "DavidF" <Nope@nospam.com> wrote:

>In addition to what David said, you CAN have both Pub 2000 and 2003 on the
>same computer...just install to different folders. Publisher 2003 has some
>features that are superior to Publisher 2000, but personally I feel
>Publisher 2000 is the better choice for web sites because of the simpler
>code and smaller file size. I do wish Publisher 2000 had pixels as a
>measurement unit, and supported horizontal nav bars, but I have found work
>arounds for that...DavidF

But stuff is changing all the time in the internet wourld. Are you
suggesting that we should use Publisher 2000 from now on to do
websites? I am presently stuck in Publisher 2000 with my websirte,
and I am not a happy camper. I was unable to move to Publisher 2002
or to Front Page 2002, and feel like Microsoft has stabbed me in the
back with misrepresentations about these products. The idea that two
members of the Office suite cannot deal with the html generated by the
other is outrageous. I was hoping for relief in the form of Publisher
2003, but reading post here, my spirits are sinking.

DavidF

2004-05-30, 12:15 pm

Hi Syd, I think that David Bartosik's response to one of your other posts is
probably the best and most complete advice you will get. Given the size and
complexity of your site, it sounds like you have outgrown using a Destop
Publishing program to produce your website. That is my main point. Publisher
is a DTP, and to expect it to have all the capacity of Frontpage,
Dreamweaver, or other more sophisticated website development tools is
unrealistic.

I chose to use Publisher 2000 to develop my website because I was already
comfortable producing my print publications with Publisher, and didn't want
to invest the time learning Frontpage or some other program. I have stayed
with 2000 because the resulting HTML code is more basic and universal than
2002 or 2003, and I have been able to do, or figure out work arounds for
everything I have wanted to do with my site thus far. I also don't care for
the size of the files produced by 2003, or the fact that the output is
designed only for IE5, or above. At the same time, I realize that what I can
do with my site is limited by this choice. Eventually, as David Bartosik
said, I will have to bite the bullet and invest the time to rebuild my site
with different, more appropriate web development tools.

While I do appreciate your frustration with the limitations of Publisher
2000, and the newer versions of Publisher, perhaps you could look at it this
way. I can do a basic water flow test for a well with a bucket and a watch,
but these are obviously not the best tools for that job. Do you suggest the
same tools for creating well logs for oil vs. water wells? Publisher is a
DTP with some website producing capability, but it was never intended to
have the same capacity as specialized website development tools. Sorry if
this isn't what you wanted to hear, but you can choose to either live with
the limitations of Publisher, or find a better tool for the job.

With this said, if there are specific problems you are having with Publisher
2000, then let us know, and perhaps we can offer solutions. Good luck.
DavidF

<analog@logwell.com> wrote in message
news:ru9ib0506bjqn48fvvjjbeclml11n9n26l@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:05:28 -0800, "DavidF" <Nope@nospam.com> wrote:
>
the[color=darkred]
some[color=darkred]
work[color=darkred]
>
> But stuff is changing all the time in the internet wourld. Are you
> suggesting that we should use Publisher 2000 from now on to do
> websites? I am presently stuck in Publisher 2000 with my websirte,
> and I am not a happy camper. I was unable to move to Publisher 2002
> or to Front Page 2002, and feel like Microsoft has stabbed me in the
> back with misrepresentations about these products. The idea that two
> members of the Office suite cannot deal with the html generated by the
> other is outrageous. I was hoping for relief in the form of Publisher
> 2003, but reading post here, my spirits are sinking.

analog@logwell.com

2004-05-30, 7:14 pm

You sure are right about not wanting to hear these excuses for M$
misconduct. It would be one thing if M$ was honest about what
Publisher was intended for. But they were, and are not, candid about
the program's limitations. I started using it over five years ago
believing it was fit for the purpose it was represented for. I also
assumed it would be upgraded with time, as other programs have been.
Instead Publisher 2002 2003 are less useable for websites than even
Publisher 2000.

This is not fair, and changing programs at this late date will
represent an unacceptable amount of work and time. The only
reasonable advice is not to use Publisher for websites. I will have
to continue to use Publisher 2000 since I simply do not have the time
or energy to migrate to a new program. What concerns me now is that
M$ will soon abandon 2000 as they have other older programs.

On Sun, 30 May 2004 06:58:37 -0700, "DavidF" <Nope@nospam.com> wrote:

>Hi Syd, I think that David Bartosik's response to one of your other posts is
>probably the best and most complete advice you will get. Given the size and
>complexity of your site, it sounds like you have outgrown using a Destop
>Publishing program to produce your website. That is my main point. Publisher
>is a DTP, and to expect it to have all the capacity of Frontpage,
>Dreamweaver, or other more sophisticated website development tools is
>unrealistic.
>
>I chose to use Publisher 2000 to develop my website because I was already
>comfortable producing my print publications with Publisher, and didn't want
>to invest the time learning Frontpage or some other program. I have stayed
>with 2000 because the resulting HTML code is more basic and universal than
>2002 or 2003, and I have been able to do, or figure out work arounds for
>everything I have wanted to do with my site thus far. I also don't care for
>the size of the files produced by 2003, or the fact that the output is
>designed only for IE5, or above. At the same time, I realize that what I can
>do with my site is limited by this choice. Eventually, as David Bartosik
>said, I will have to bite the bullet and invest the time to rebuild my site
>with different, more appropriate web development tools.
>
>While I do appreciate your frustration with the limitations of Publisher
>2000, and the newer versions of Publisher, perhaps you could look at it this
>way. I can do a basic water flow test for a well with a bucket and a watch,
>but these are obviously not the best tools for that job. Do you suggest the
>same tools for creating well logs for oil vs. water wells? Publisher is a
>DTP with some website producing capability, but it was never intended to
>have the same capacity as specialized website development tools. Sorry if
>this isn't what you wanted to hear, but you can choose to either live with
>the limitations of Publisher, or find a better tool for the job.
>
>With this said, if there are specific problems you are having with Publisher
>2000, then let us know, and perhaps we can offer solutions. Good luck.
>DavidF
>
><analog@logwell.com> wrote in message
>news:ru9ib0506bjqn48fvvjjbeclml11n9n26l@4ax.com...
>the
>some
>work
>

Cheryl Wise

2004-05-31, 4:14 am

Excuse me but Publisher is marketed as a Desktop Publishing Program with the
side capacity to publish your pages in HTML. The code generated reflect an
attempt to treat a web page as the printed page. Something that is not even
desirable.

For a quick test I used the Site Import Wizard in FrontPage 2003 to pull
down your home page and all the linked images. To do that I opened FrontPage
2003 and used File, New and from the New panel that opens on the right site
of the screen I selected "More Web site templates ..." from the section
title New Web site. The selected the "Import Website Wizard". Followed the
prompts to create a new site on my computer. Since I don't have the userid
or password I could only get what is publicly available to a browser.

Then to make updating easier I published the site to a new folder using the
"optimize" settings to remove as much of the publisher mark-up as possible.
Next I opened the new "optimized" site and could see very good reasons for
moving the site to FrontPage instead of Publisher. In desktop publishing you
want your images embedded in each page. Which means when it is saved as an
HTML page all of the images are saved again with each page. On a web page
you want to reuse images as much as possible to save bandwidth and make your
pages load faster. I see a copy of img0.gif in every folder. Most of which
include one HTML file only. Many of them have different backgrounds and have
missing navigation. You need a consistent look and feel and something on the
background that is easy to read on all pages.

I spend maybe half an hour creating a new look for your site that can be
turned into a Dynamic Web Template. From there it is nothing more creating a
new page and putting in the content (or copying it from an existing page)
and the applying the DWT to it. After that you can update all pages simply
by editing the template. Add new pages, just put the content in a new page
then apply DWT.

The cleaned up sample I put up at http://wizerways.net/logwell1/ is not how
I would have designed a site for one of my clients but just by getting rid
of the nested table code and font code the page size was reduced down from
40k to 14k. Granted I did remove the viewable with any browser link because
that is so 1998. Far better to view it in multiple browser which I did. The
background displays on the left instead of the right in NN 4.x but that's
the only substantial difference, not the end of the world.

With a large site you need to bite the bullet and move to a web editing too
that has site management capabilities that are not part of and should not be
part of a desktop publishing program. Yes, there will be a learning curve
but once you have gotten past it you will be much better off in terms of
future maintenance of the site that trying to use a screwdriver when what
you need is a hammer.

--
Cheryl D. Wise
MS-MVP-FrontPage
http://mvp.wiserways.com

<analog@logwell.com> wrote in message
news:l08kb0dj7qv2dvkemv4t34pqfo75l9pg6l@4ax.com...[color=darkred]
> You sure are right about not wanting to hear these excuses for M$
> misconduct. It would be one thing if M$ was honest about what
> Publisher was intended for. But they were, and are not, candid about
> the program's limitations. I started using it over five years ago
> believing it was fit for the purpose it was represented for. I also
> assumed it would be upgraded with time, as other programs have been.
> Instead Publisher 2002 2003 are less useable for websites than even
> Publisher 2000.
>
> This is not fair, and changing programs at this late date will
> represent an unacceptable amount of work and time. The only
> reasonable advice is not to use Publisher for websites. I will have
> to continue to use Publisher 2000 since I simply do not have the time
> or energy to migrate to a new program. What concerns me now is that
> M$ will soon abandon 2000 as they have other older programs.
>
> On Sun, 30 May 2004 06:58:37 -0700, "DavidF" <Nope@nospam.com> wrote:
>
is[color=darkred]
and[color=darkred]
Publisher[color=darkred]
want[color=darkred]
stayed[color=darkred]
than[color=darkred]
for[color=darkred]
can[color=darkred]
site[color=darkred]
this[color=darkred]
watch,[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
with[color=darkred]
Publisher[color=darkred]

analog@logwell.com

2004-05-31, 7:15 pm

*Responses embedded below:

>Excuse me but Publisher is marketed as a Desktop Publishing Program with the
>side capacity to publish your pages in HTML. The code generated reflect an
>attempt to treat a web page as the printed page. Something that is not even
>desirable.

*Show me where M$ says the above anywhere in their promotional
literature. You know it, and I now know it, but if you go by what M$
says about Publisher, it is an all-in-one solution. The prospect of
being able to use the same work product for printed material and to
generate web pages is a powerful lure. Why do you say the odball html
generated is an attempt to treat a web page as the printed page? It
looks to me more like a coding kludge. An even worse possible
explanation is that they did not want to compromise the market for
FrontPage, and if that is the case, it is yet another example of
inexcusable greed.
>
>For a quick test I used the Site Import Wizard in FrontPage 2003 to pull
>down your home page and all the linked images. To do that I opened FrontPage
>2003 and used File, New and from the New panel that opens on the right site
>of the screen I selected "More Web site templates ..." from the section
>title New Web site. The selected the "Import Website Wizard". Followed the
>prompts to create a new site on my computer. Since I don't have the userid
>or password I could only get what is publicly available to a browser.
>
>Then to make updating easier I published the site to a new folder using the
>"optimize" settings to remove as much of the publisher mark-up as possible.
>Next I opened the new "optimized" site and could see very good reasons for
>moving the site to FrontPage instead of Publisher. In desktop publishing you
>want your images embedded in each page. Which means when it is saved as an
>HTML page all of the images are saved again with each page. On a web page
>you want to reuse images as much as possible to save bandwidth and make your
>pages load faster. I see a copy of img0.gif in every folder. Most of which
>include one HTML file only. Many of them have different backgrounds and have
>missing navigation. You need a consistent look and feel and something on the
>background that is easy to read on all pages.

*Everybody is a critic. Most of the files have more than one html
file, some have dozens. There is no missing navigation; it is present
in its entirety on all menu pages, but certain content pages have only
navigation to return to the controlling menu page, and to home, by
design. This is extremely arcane technical content, and of no
interest to casual browsers. Further, the site has been kept simple
since we know from the logs that it is being viewed with primitive
browser versions. I am aware of the inefficient use of graphics by
Publisher generated html, but it is not a problem at this site due to
the relative lack of graphics. The couple of recurring gifs are just
the blank page and the logo, and they load very quickly even on a slow
dialup connection (gawd, now I am making excuses for Publisher). The
different backgrounds are also intentional since the various sections
are treated as "sub websites" relating to very different areas of
interest. I am well aware that multiple backgrounds is considerd bad
form, but i like it, and apparently it has not discouraged thousands
of visitors.
>
>I spend maybe half an hour creating a new look for your site that can be
>turned into a Dynamic Web Template. From there it is nothing more creating a
>new page and putting in the content (or copying it from an existing page)
>and the applying the DWT to it. After that you can update all pages simply
>by editing the template. Add new pages, just put the content in a new page
>then apply DWT.

*First, the "new look" does not appeal to me. But more importantly, I
do not want to have all the pages look the same, even if that is the
holy grail of web design. Even if I was moved by the false elegance
of this solution, it would take many hours to transfer the content
from 300 pages, some of which are quite long (with some graphics and
tables).
>
>The cleaned up sample I put up at http://wizerways.net/logwell1/ is not how
>I would have designed a site for one of my clients but just by getting rid
>of the nested table code and font code the page size was reduced down from
>40k to 14k. Granted I did remove the viewable with any browser link because
>that is so 1998. Far better to view it in multiple browser which I did. The
>background displays on the left instead of the right in NN 4.x but that's
>the only substantial difference, not the end of the world.

*With a few tricks Publisher generated html renders almost perfectly
in nutscrape 4.x, so that is not really a concern. Look at my version
of the page in NN 4.x. So 1998, eh? I suppose a M$ booster would say
that. You think that 40K is big, try doing the page in Publisher 2003
(and apparently 2003 from what i read in here).

Out of curiosity, what would you charge to redesign the site from
scratch and get all of the existing content up and running? I would
want to be able to maintain it and add to it once the initial work was
done. I mean here, a completely new professional look, not a
reworking of my pitiful unprofessional effort (which I know is sub
standard despite my railings above).
>
>With a large site you need to bite the bullet and move to a web editing too
>that has site management capabilities that are not part of and should not be
>part of a desktop publishing program. Yes, there will be a learning curve
>but once you have gotten past it you will be much better off in terms of
>future maintenance of the site that trying to use a screwdriver when what
>you need is a hammer.

I can live without the site management capabilites. Like the guru
here, I long ago discoverd how to use multiple Publisher files to make
maintenance fairly easy, and in a perverse way, fun. However, my
problems with Publisher as a website design tool are far more
fundamental than merey awkward site management issues.

Cheryl Wise

2004-05-31, 7:15 pm

My sites all work in every browser out there including Pocket PCs. They
don't always look exactly the same which is fine by me. A site should not
look exactly the same on a Pocket PC as it does in Mozilla 1.5. The Pocket
PC user would be unhappy with an interface that required 760+ pixels to
render. I don't really care about NN 4.x. I don't think I've had one hit on
our website in the last year that wasn't my testing using NN 4.x and the
largest clients for our non-web apps are oil companies including those
outside the US. . While my current site is cross-browser, cross-platform and
multi-device compatible I'm tired of it and have a lot more information to
be adding regarding our portfolio analysis tool. It is about to get
overhauled again with a new menu design that will be much lighter anyway.

As far as what I charge it depends on what I'm doing. That is a discussion
best continued off list since considerably more information would be needed
before I could begin to make an estimate.

FWIW, I created my first website with MS Publisher 2.0 in 1993. That was the
one and only site that I ever created in it and not one page weighed in at
under 40k. Even the AOLPress web tool was better than that generation of
Publisher.

--
Cheryl D. Wise
MS-MVP-FrontPage
http://mvp.wiserways.com

<analog@logwell.com> wrote in message
news:cqtmb0104ncoofheb7gsb2l98979dlpkmn@4ax.com...

> *With a few tricks Publisher generated html renders almost perfectly
> in nutscrape 4.x, so that is not really a concern. Look at my version
> of the page in NN 4.x. So 1998, eh? I suppose a M$ booster would say
> that. You think that 40K is big, try doing the page in Publisher 2003
> (and apparently 2003 from what i read in here).
>
> Out of curiosity, what would you charge to redesign the site from
> scratch and get all of the existing content up and running? I would
> want to be able to maintain it and add to it once the initial work was
> done. I mean here, a completely new professional look, not a
> reworking of my pitiful unprofessional effort (which I know is sub
> standard despite my railings above).

analog@logwell.com

2004-05-31, 7:15 pm

>As far as what I charge it depends on what I'm doing. That is a discussion
>best continued off list since considerably more information would be needed
>before I could begin to make an estimate.

*Let me know what you need to know: analog@logwell.com
>
>FWIW, I created my first website with MS Publisher 2.0 in 1993. That was the
>one and only site that I ever created in it and not one page weighed in at
>under 40k. Even the AOLPress web tool was better than that generation of
>Publisher.

*Apparently Publisher 2000 is the best of the Publisher versions for
doing html, but that is a truly sad state of affairs. Publisher 2002,
and reportedly Publisher 2003 produce insanely bloated html. This
newsgroup is really a bit of a joke since the best advice the MVPs can
give anyone trying to use Publisher for a website is RUNAWAY. As I am
sure is obvious, I am just a tad annoyed with M$ for misrepresenting
the abilities of Publisher.

Brian Kvalheim - [MS MVP]

2004-05-31, 11:16 pm

In news:klanb0557fqchvnvfofiatr4nb29i1p1mj@4ax.com,
analog@logwell.com <analog@logwell.com> posted:
>
> *Let me know what you need to know: analog@logwell.com
>
> *Apparently Publisher 2000 is the best of the Publisher versions for
> doing html, but that is a truly sad state of affairs. Publisher 2002,
> and reportedly Publisher 2003 produce insanely bloated html. This
> newsgroup is really a bit of a joke since the best advice the MVPs can
> give anyone trying to use Publisher for a website is RUNAWAY. As I am
> sure is obvious, I am just a tad annoyed with M$ for misrepresenting
> the abilities of Publisher.

How have they misrepresented? Publisher is a DTP program, not a web design
program. Why do you think Office is sold with Publisher AND FrontPage?

--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Publisher MVP
http://www.publishermvps.com

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.

analog@logwell.com

2004-05-31, 11:16 pm

Read the friggin' Publisher box. Further, some versions of Office are
supplied with Publisher, and not Front Page. Office for Small
Business used to be that way, may still be. Amazing how you guys so
persistently defend a morally bankrupt bunch.

>How have they misrepresented? Publisher is a DTP program, not a web design
>program. Why do you think Office is sold with Publisher AND FrontPage?