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

Author

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

Mertens

2004-06-21, 7:15 pm

I am not quite sure if I loaded the service pack or not. I think I was using 2000. I might save all of my pages in the 2000 version on disk, wipe out 2003 and reload 2000. I am getting a lot of complaints from consumers that the website is not as func
tional as it was.

Here is a sample of my website if you would like to take a look:

http://animalshare.wantapet.com/ani...tics/index.html

Thanks to both of you for your responses, this is the first time I have posted questions. I have used this forum and your FAQ webpage to answer all of my other questions.

Mark Mertens

"David Bartosik - MS MVP" wrote:

> 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...
> 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.
>
>
>

David Bartosik - MS MVP

2004-06-21, 7:15 pm

The functionality complaints might be from non IE users. 2000 set to the 3.0
target setting will give you pretty good cross browser support whereas 2003
is designed for IE 5+ only.

Due to the way 2003 handles graphics I can't recommend it for a site that is
graphic intensive like yours. The simplicity in 2000 would be a better fit
in that respect.

Just look at the pros and cons of each one. good luck.

--
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:9A28E661-383D-421C-819F-E40BE1BEE71C@microsoft.com...
> I am not quite sure if I loaded the service pack or not. I think I was
using 2000. I might save all of my pages in the 2000 version on disk, wipe
out 2003 and reload 2000. I am getting a lot of complaints from consumers
that the website is not as functional as it was.
>
> Here is a sample of my website if you would like to take a look:
>
> http://animalshare.wantapet.com/ani...tics/index.html
>
> Thanks to both of you for your responses, this is the first time I have
posted questions. I have used this forum and your FAQ webpage to answer all
of my other questions.[color=darkred]
>
> Mark Mertens
>
>
>
> "David Bartosik - MS MVP" wrote:
>
much[color=darkred]
in[color=darkred]
now[color=darkred]
in[color=darkred]

analog@logwell.com

2004-06-21, 7:15 pm

Can you promise M$ will not orphan Publisher 2000? Will it work in the next
version of Winbloz? Based on past experience with older software, it scares me
to me stranded in Publisher 2000. I suspect you MVPs are mostly a young bunch
with limited long term perspective; I could be wrong, of course.

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:08:12 -0500, "David Bartosik - MS MVP"
<forums@davidbartosik.com> wrote:

>The functionality complaints might be from non IE users. 2000 set to the 3.0
>target setting will give you pretty good cross browser support whereas 2003
>is designed for IE 5+ only.
>
>Due to the way 2003 handles graphics I can't recommend it for a site that is
>graphic intensive like yours. The simplicity in 2000 would be a better fit
>in that respect.
>
>Just look at the pros and cons of each one. good luck.

Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]

2004-06-21, 7:15 pm

Hi analog@logwell.com (analog@logwell.com),
in the newsgroups
you posted:

|| I suspect
|| you MVPs are mostly a young bunch with limited long term
|| perspective; I could be wrong, of course.

Not young here! I will be 32 in September.
--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Publisher MVP
http://www.publishermvps.com
~pay it forward~

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

JoAnn Paules

2004-06-21, 7:15 pm

Young? Me? Thank you. :-)

--
JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]

<analog@logwell.com> wrote in message
news:bf2ed0pdkfhgosbi8357nreusart96us01@4ax.com...
> Can you promise M$ will not orphan Publisher 2000? Will it work in the
> next
> version of Winbloz? Based on past experience with older software, it
> scares me
> to me stranded in Publisher 2000. I suspect you MVPs are mostly a young
> bunch
> with limited long term perspective; I could be wrong, of course.
>
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:08:12 -0500, "David Bartosik - MS MVP"
> <forums@davidbartosik.com> wrote:
>
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 6/18/2004

JoAnn Paules

2004-06-21, 7:15 pm

Tee hee! I've got socks older than you!

--
JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]

"Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]" <bkvalheim@publishermvps.com> wrote in message
news:uC$5Je7VEHA.3988@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi analog@logwell.com (analog@logwell.com),
> in the newsgroups
> you posted:
>
> || I suspect
> || you MVPs are mostly a young bunch with limited long term
> || perspective; I could be wrong, of course.
>
> Not young here! I will be 32 in September.
> --
> Brian Kvalheim
> Microsoft Publisher MVP
> http://www.publishermvps.com
> ~pay it forward~
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
> confers no rights.
>
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 6/18/2004

Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]

2004-06-21, 7:15 pm

Hi JoAnn Paules (jpaules@publishermvps.com),
in the newsgroups
you posted:

|| Tee hee! I've got socks older than you!

Has it been 30+ years since you washed them too? :-)
--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Publisher MVP
http://www.publishermvps.com
~pay it forward~

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

JoAnn Paules

2004-06-21, 7:15 pm

Yep - and they still smell better than you! :-P

--
JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]

"Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]" <bkvalheim@publishermvps.com> wrote in message
news:eIEYaP8VEHA.4024@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi JoAnn Paules (jpaules@publishermvps.com),
> in the newsgroups
> you posted:
>
> || Tee hee! I've got socks older than you!
>
> Has it been 30+ years since you washed them too? :-)
> --
> Brian Kvalheim
> Microsoft Publisher MVP
> http://www.publishermvps.com
> ~pay it forward~
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
> confers no rights.
>
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 6/18/2004

analog@logwell.com

2004-06-21, 7:15 pm

That is pretty young my friend.

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:42:31 -0500, "Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]"
<bkvalheim@publishermvps.com> wrote:

>Hi analog@logwell.com (analog@logwell.com),
>in the newsgroups
>you posted:
>
>|| I suspect
>|| you MVPs are mostly a young bunch with limited long term
>|| perspective; I could be wrong, of course.
>
>Not young here! I will be 32 in September.

analog@logwell.com

2004-06-21, 7:15 pm

Honest truth is that I have shoes older than him.

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:58:20 -0400, "JoAnn Paules" <jpaules@publishermvps.com>
wrote:

>Tee hee! I've got socks older than you!

JoAnn Paules

2004-06-21, 7:15 pm

It is - I'm technically old enough to be his mom. But if I had done what it
would have taken to concieve him - my mom would have killed me!

--
JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]

<analog@logwell.com> wrote in message
news:mcled05tag9csoc5knd6nou8rhfrlghe8g@4ax.com...
> That is pretty young my friend.
>
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:42:31 -0500, "Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]"
> <bkvalheim@publishermvps.com> wrote:
>
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 6/18/2004

Brian Kvalheim - [MS MVP]

2004-06-21, 7:15 pm

In news:mcled05tag9csoc5knd6nou8rhfrlghe8g@4ax.com,
analog@logwell.com <analog@logwell.com> posted:
> That is pretty young my friend.

Well, either way...young or not, I am pretty confident in my experience and
knowledge in Publisher. But I am impressed that you called me your friend
instead of a fool. I would much rather be a friend.
--
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

2004-06-21, 11:14 pm

I am a nice guy; actually an old pacifist. I have only been ragging you because
you started this with some nasty comments about me a couple of weeks back when I
first came in this group to see if Publisher 2003 would solve my problems. I am
not just technically old enough to be your parent, I actually have a daughter a
little older than you.

I use Publisher 2000 to build and maintain a 300 page commercial website that
receives several thousand hits each day (and that is a bunch for an arcane
technical site). I am also confident in my skills with Publisher, at least with
respect to beating it into submission for web site work. I was using David's
multiple file trick back in Publisher 98, and an escalation guy at M$ could not
believe anybody would go to those lengths.

However, I am very upset that I have not been able to practically move into
Publisher 2002, and now Publisher 2003. When I decided to bail out and go to
Front Page is when I realized I was truly in deep dodo. It would take countless
hours to do so at this late date. I now hope against hope that M$ will do the
right thing and produce a future release of Publisher that does the job. If I
have unrealistic expectations, I am sorry.

A page you may get a kick out of:
http://www.logwell.com/WRFN/index.html

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:12:23 -0500, "Brian Kvalheim - [MS MVP]"
<publisher@mvps.org> wrote:

>In news:mcled05tag9csoc5knd6nou8rhfrlghe8g@4ax.com,
>analog@logwell.com <analog@logwell.com> posted:
>
>Well, either way...young or not, I am pretty confident in my experience and
>knowledge in Publisher. But I am impressed that you called me your friend
>instead of a fool. I would much rather be a friend.

Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]

2004-06-22, 12:16 pm

Hi analog@logwell.com (analog@logwell.com),
in the newsgroups
you posted:

|| I am a nice guy; actually an old pacifist. I have only been ragging
|| you because you started this with some nasty comments about me a
|| couple of weeks back when I first came in this group to see if
|| Publisher 2003 would solve my problems. I am not just technically
|| old enough to be your parent, I actually have a daughter a little
|| older than you.

Hopefully we get some nice improvements with the Publisher 2003 Service
pack. We will be sure to inform YOU if they improved anything.

|| I use Publisher 2000 to build and maintain a 300 page commercial
|| website that receives several thousand hits each day (and that is a
|| bunch for an arcane technical site). I am also confident in my
|| skills with Publisher, at least with respect to beating it into
|| submission for web site work. I was using David's multiple file
|| trick back in Publisher 98, and an escalation guy at M$ could not
|| believe anybody would go to those lengths.

That is a VERY large website for Publisher. Holy cow. Largest one I
personally have ever heard of.

|| However, I am very upset that I have not been able to practically
|| move into Publisher 2002, and now Publisher 2003. When I decided to
|| bail out and go to Front Page is when I realized I was truly in deep
|| dodo. It would take countless hours to do so at this late date. I
|| now hope against hope that M$ will do the right thing and produce a
|| future release of Publisher that does the job. If I have
|| unrealistic expectations, I am sorry.

I can't imagine the work that is involved. I know that I have alot of work
ahead of me converting my FrontPage 2003 created pages to a text format with
html coding that will be used on our ASP.net site. But I will start plugging
away :-(

|| A page you may get a kick out of:
|| http://www.logwell.com/WRFN/index.html

That is a whole lot of reading on that page....whew! Before I was born!

--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Publisher MVP
http://www.publishermvps.com
~pay it forward~

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

analog@logwell.com

2004-06-22, 7:21 pm

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:37:55 -0500, "Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]"
<bkvalheim@publishermvps.com> wrote:

>
>|| I use Publisher 2000 to build and maintain a 300 page commercial
>|| website that receives several thousand hits each day (and that is a
>|| bunch for an arcane technical site). I am also confident in my
>|| skills with Publisher, at least with respect to beating it into
>|| submission for web site work. I was using David's multiple file
>|| trick back in Publisher 98, and an escalation guy at M$ could not
>|| believe anybody would go to those lengths.
>
>That is a VERY large website for Publisher. Holy cow. Largest one I
>personally have ever heard of.
>

* I built it in Publisher because I was enticed by the idea I could use the
same material for printed pages. M$ never said don't do that if you expect your
website to grow to 300 pages. Nevertheless, I like using Publisher 2000, and in
general am pleased with the job it does. There is a kind of elegance to David's
multiple file trick, though it gets a bit complicated and certainly is not for
everybody. Notwithstanding Bill's frequent comments about the utility of older
versions of M$ software, anyone who has been using PCs for twenty years knows
that is a fiction. Effort invested in mastering old DOS programs can now be
viewed as largely wasted for example. So the ability to easily move forward
with subsequent releases is a vital and essential feature. That is the crux of
the problem with being stranded in Publisher 2000, if that makes sense to you.

BTW, the M$ escalation crew got involved when I was pissed off about problems
moving into Publisher 2002, and subsequently into Front Page 2002. The top dog
also said he was aware of no larger website being done with Publisher.
Ironically, they asked permission to tout logwell.com as an example of what
could be done with Publisher (this was a few years back). The site ain't
graphically pretty because it is meant to be accessible to primitive browsers in
the third world (a significant number of hits originate in the old Russian
Federation countries and even more remote parts of the world due to the arcane
content). But it is big, as you noted about that long winded WRFN page.

Napoleon

2005-11-09, 4:58 pm

I believe the "Filtered HTML" format is my issue also:
I am attempting to publish one time from MS Publisher 2003 (utilizing nice
templates) and then converting to solely using Frontpage 2003 with its added
functionality.
In effect, I want to configure Publisher so as to publish HTML code as
though it was originally built in Frontpage w/o table encapsultated data,
etc.
Any suggestions on how to do this or how to get as close to this as
possible. Using hosted site with FP extensions.
--
Thanks much,

NAP

"David Bartosik - MS MVP" 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.
>
> --
> 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...
> new
> the
> M$
> would be
> over my
> ready
> 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.
>
>
>

Rob Giordano $Crash$

2005-11-09, 4:58 pm

Don't waste your time trying to convert a Pub created web to a FP created
one...by the time you clean it up in FP you could have redone the web in FP
three times over. Just redo the web in FP.

"Napoleon" <Napoleon@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A36D8D71-2AE6-4A1A-AF1C-70D4EDEF1B9C@microsoft.com...
|I believe the "Filtered HTML" format is my issue also:
| I am attempting to publish one time from MS Publisher 2003 (utilizing nice
| templates) and then converting to solely using Frontpage 2003 with its
added
| functionality.
| In effect, I want to configure Publisher so as to publish HTML code as
| though it was originally built in Frontpage w/o table encapsultated data,
| etc.
| Any suggestions on how to do this or how to get as close to this as
| possible. Using hosted site with FP extensions.
| --
| Thanks much,
|
| NAP
|
|
| "David Bartosik - MS MVP" 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.
| >
| > --
| > 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:
| > >
| > > >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,
| > >
| >
| >
| >

Napoleon

2005-11-10, 6:50 pm

Thanks much crash - I was starting to get that feeling!
--
Thanks much,

NAP

"Rob Giordano (Crash)" wrote:

> Don't waste your time trying to convert a Pub created web to a FP created
> one...by the time you clean it up in FP you could have redone the web in FP
> three times over. Just redo the web in FP.
>
>
> "Napoleon" <Napoleon@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A36D8D71-2AE6-4A1A-AF1C-70D4EDEF1B9C@microsoft.com...
> |I believe the "Filtered HTML" format is my issue also:
> | I am attempting to publish one time from MS Publisher 2003 (utilizing nice
> | templates) and then converting to solely using Frontpage 2003 with its
> added
> | functionality.
> | In effect, I want to configure Publisher so as to publish HTML code as
> | though it was originally built in Frontpage w/o table encapsultated data,
> | etc.
> | Any suggestions on how to do this or how to get as close to this as
> | possible. Using hosted site with FP extensions.
> | --
> | Thanks much,
> |
> | NAP
> |
> |
> | "David Bartosik - MS MVP" 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.
> | >
> | > --
> | > 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:
> | > >
> | > > >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,
> | > >
> | >
> | >
> | >
>
>
>

Rob Giordano $Crash$

2005-11-11, 7:14 pm

You can still pull some stuff over from Pub, images etc....if you're
familiar with FP it shouldnt take too long.

"Napoleon" <Napoleon@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A83C93B5-C742-4548-90C4-A3B6B4D6C219@microsoft.com...
| Thanks much crash - I was starting to get that feeling!
| --
| Thanks much,
|
| NAP
|
|
| "Rob Giordano (Crash)" wrote:
|
| > Don't waste your time trying to convert a Pub created web to a FP
created
| > one...by the time you clean it up in FP you could have redone the web in
FP
| > three times over. Just redo the web in FP.
| >
| >
| > "Napoleon" <Napoleon@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
| > news:A36D8D71-2AE6-4A1A-AF1C-70D4EDEF1B9C@microsoft.com...
| > |I believe the "Filtered HTML" format is my issue also:
| > | I am attempting to publish one time from MS Publisher 2003 (utilizing
nice
| > | templates) and then converting to solely using Frontpage 2003 with its
| > added
| > | functionality.
| > | In effect, I want to configure Publisher so as to publish HTML code as
| > | though it was originally built in Frontpage w/o table encapsultated
data,
| > | etc.
| > | Any suggestions on how to do this or how to get as close to this as
| > | possible. Using hosted site with FP extensions.
| > | --
| > | Thanks much,
| > |
| > | NAP
| > |
| > |
| > | "David Bartosik - MS MVP" 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.
| > | >
| > | > --
| > | > 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:
| > | > >
| > | > > >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,
| > | > >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| >
| >
| >