Microsoft Publisher - Publisher 2003 saves my wepage as a filtered webpage, I don't like

Author

Publisher 2003 saves my wepage as a filtered webpage, I don't like

Mertens

2004-06-20, 7:15 pm

Is there any way I can save my webpage in another format than filtered in 2003? My website in 2002 was much more user friendly. It bothers me now that the images on my website take so much longer to load than they did in publisher 2002.

Thanks,

analog@logwell.com

2004-06-20, 11:15 pm

David will explain some tricks you can use when he responds to your post. But
be advised that Publisher 2003 is a disaster at the moment for websites, as was
Publisher 2002 prior to a bloated coding patch. Perhaps there will be a patch
for 2003, but Publisher 2000 is actually the best of the bunch for websites if
the site is more than a very few pages long.

In my humble opinion, M$ has screwed up badly with respect to Publisher and
websites. It need not have been so if they had listened to the many complaints
from users maintaining relatively large websites with Publisher.

Also be advised that complaining in here about these problems will get you
labeled as a whiner, a fool, or worse.

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 14:28:01 -0700, "Mertens"
<Mertens@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Is there any way I can save my webpage in another format than filtered in 2003? My website in 2002 was much more user friendly. It bothers me now that the images on my website take so much longer to load than they did in publisher 2002.
>
>Thanks,

analog@logwell.com

2004-06-20, 11:15 pm

And, btw, it is not that it is "filtered", it is that M$ has implemented new
technology. All versions of Publisher generate peculiar html coding; even the
best of the bunch (2000) generates fairly bulky nested table code. 2002
initially generated very bloated code, but that was later patched. 2003
generates bloated code for a different reason, but one would have thought M$
could have foreseen the outcome. Perhaps a choice of the coding engine would be
desirable, but I am just thinking out loud about something that is way over my
head. The bottom line is that 2003 was released (just like 2002 was) "not ready
for prime time" with respect to web work.

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 14:28:01 -0700, "Mertens"
<Mertens@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Is there any way I can save my webpage in another format than filtered in 2003? My website in 2002 was much more user friendly. It bothers me now that the images on my website take so much longer to load than they did in publisher 2002.
>
>Thanks,

David Bartosik - MS MVP

2004-06-20, 11:15 pm

I have never called you a whiner or a fool. You and I don't seem to agree on
anything though so we'll have to agree on that point at least.

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

<analog@logwell.com> wrote in message
news:rm9cd0lk8e2j6fncneor7pubk7vmivkdb7@4ax.com...
> David will explain some tricks you can use when he responds to your post.
But
> be advised that Publisher 2003 is a disaster at the moment for websites,
as was
> Publisher 2002 prior to a bloated coding patch. Perhaps there will be a
patch
> for 2003, but Publisher 2000 is actually the best of the bunch for
websites if
> the site is more than a very few pages long.
>
> In my humble opinion, M$ has screwed up badly with respect to Publisher
and
> websites. It need not have been so if they had listened to the many
complaints
> from users maintaining relatively large websites with Publisher.
>
> Also be advised that complaining in here about these problems will get you
> labeled as a whiner, a fool, or worse.
>
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 14:28:01 -0700, "Mertens"
> <Mertens@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
2003? My website in 2002 was much more user friendly. It bothers me now
that the images on my website take so much longer to load than they did in
publisher 2002.[color=darkred]
>

David Bartosik - MS MVP

2004-06-20, 11:15 pm

It is filtered in MS speak. It's a long story.

What mr analog doesn't know and may not appreciate, is that I have been
(since 2002 ever released) and continue to be the biggest and loudest
advocate for cleaner html coding in Publisher. I can't talk about it because
of NDA's but I can tell you have met with the Publisher product group in
Redmond a few times and I push the issue all the time.

With the next release of Publisher conservatively a couple of years out you
have 3 options if you decide to use Publisher, Version 2000, or 2002, or
2003. You have to weigh the pros and cons of each one against what you
require and go from there.

One thing that is invisible to the customers is that MVP's are on the front
lines. We are the link between MS product groups and the customers. When a
customer rants and raves up one thread and down the other I'd hope they can
step back and understand that we know the pain points and we are already on
it.

Recently it was announced how you can use default settings in 2002/2003.
That was the direct result of MVP involvement. Another example would be web
page file naming in 2003. Recently MS has had the MVP's author articles for
the Office website to better get information to the customers.

Guess I'm looking for less negative attacks in this forum and more
appreciation of the MVP's.

ok I'm off my soap box now.

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

<analog@logwell.com> wrote in message
news:85acd017822i231c34588ubos2pmf40tdk@4ax.com...
> And, btw, it is not that it is "filtered", it is that M$ has implemented
new
> technology. All versions of Publisher generate peculiar html coding; even
the
> best of the bunch (2000) generates fairly bulky nested table code. 2002
> initially generated very bloated code, but that was later patched. 2003
> generates bloated code for a different reason, but one would have thought
M$
> could have foreseen the outcome. Perhaps a choice of the coding engine
would be
> desirable, but I am just thinking out loud about something that is way
over my
> head. The bottom line is that 2003 was released (just like 2002 was) "not
ready
> for prime time" with respect to web work.
>
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 14:28:01 -0700, "Mertens"
> <Mertens@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
2003? My website in 2002 was much more user friendly. It bothers me now
that the images on my website take so much longer to load than they did in
publisher 2002.[color=darkred]
>

David Bartosik - MS MVP

2004-06-20, 11:15 pm

In your 2002 did you load service pack 1?
If so then your pages where "filtered" and are slightly similar to 2003.
See my comparison at www.davidbartosik.com/pub11.htm
If you did not have SP 1 then your 2002 pages would be much much much much
more bloated then 2003.

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

"Mertens" <Mertens@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:14025D2D-9BB1-449F-8080-0E5F64428BF9@microsoft.com...
> Is there any way I can save my webpage in another format than filtered in
2003? My website in 2002 was much more user friendly. It bothers me now
that the images on my website take so much longer to load than they did in
publisher 2002.
>
> Thanks,

analog@logwell.com

2004-06-21, 7:15 pm

David, you are a great guy, but M$ is full of crap. I very much appreciate your
efforts, but remain a bit perplexed by your loyalty to M$. You have to
understand that some of us users are extremely frustrated, and more than a
little upset. It is human nature that you will be the brunt of some of that
frustration. It is like a prison guard with the best of intentions being
baffled that the prisoners blame him for the warden's policies. (For the
benefit of the nit pickers, that is simile, and not metaphor).

Are you saying that the next release might be better? Can you ask them to be
sure it can take 2000 created files and deal with them without major hassle?

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:25:00 -0500, "David Bartosik - MS MVP"
<forums@davidbartosik.com> wrote:

>It is filtered in MS speak. It's a long story.
>
>What mr analog doesn't know and may not appreciate, is that I have been
>(since 2002 ever released) and continue to be the biggest and loudest
>advocate for cleaner html coding in Publisher. I can't talk about it because
>of NDA's but I can tell you have met with the Publisher product group in
>Redmond a few times and I push the issue all the time.
>
>With the next release of Publisher conservatively a couple of years out you
>have 3 options if you decide to use Publisher, Version 2000, or 2002, or
>2003. You have to weigh the pros and cons of each one against what you
>require and go from there.
>
>One thing that is invisible to the customers is that MVP's are on the front
>lines. We are the link between MS product groups and the customers. When a
>customer rants and raves up one thread and down the other I'd hope they can
>step back and understand that we know the pain points and we are already on
>it.
>
>Recently it was announced how you can use default settings in 2002/2003.
>That was the direct result of MVP involvement. Another example would be web
>page file naming in 2003. Recently MS has had the MVP's author articles for
>the Office website to better get information to the customers.
>
>Guess I'm looking for less negative attacks in this forum and more
>appreciation of the MVP's.
>
>ok I'm off my soap box now.