 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussionsAccessExcelInfoPathOutlookPowerPointPublisherWordDirectoryUser Groups Related Topics Outlook ExpressInternet ExplorerWindowsMS Server ProductsMore Topics ... |
MS Office Forum / Publisher / Web Design / June 2004Publisher html & Dreamweaver
Does anyone have first hand experience with importing Publisher generated html into Dreamweaver? Can Dreamweaver deal with it any better than FrontPage does? Thanks in advance. Syd H. Levine analog@logwell.com I'd recommend visiting Macromedia's forums and posting this there, as it seems to me that anyone that made such a move would no longer hang around here.  SignatureDavid Bartosik - MS MVP for Publisher help: www.davidbartosik.com enter to win Pub 2003: www.davidbartosik.com/giveaway.aspx > Does anyone have first hand experience with importing Publisher > generated html into Dreamweaver? Can Dreamweaver deal with it any [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Syd H. Levine > analog@logwell.com Thanks, I did that. But if it cannot be done, they might still be hanging around here out of desparation, like I am. >I'd recommend visiting Macromedia's forums and posting this there, as it >seems to me that anyone that made such a move would no longer hang around >here. HTML is HTML and Dreamweaver is not likely to do any better with Publisher HTML than FrontPage is. It has a clean up Word Wizard but it is designed to deal with mso:normal type code. SignatureCheryl D. Wise MS-MVP-FrontPage http://mvp.wiserways.com > Thanks, I did that. But if it cannot be done, they might still be > hanging around here out of desparation, like I am. > > >I'd recommend visiting Macromedia's forums and posting this there, as it > >seems to me that anyone that made such a move would no longer hang around > >here. Actually, that is apparently not true. I asked this same question in the Dreamweaver forum, and a couple of people actually took the www.logwell.com home page and ran it through Dreamweaver. It worked much better than FrontPage 2002 did (I never tried FrontPage 2003). The real question is why does Publisher create such oddball html? I have said it before, and Ii will say it again, M$ should not represent Publisher to be an all-in-one tool. Do I wish I never started using it for a website? Hell yes, but I did so based on representations made by M$ of fitness. By the time I realized I had dug a hole, it was quite deep. >HTML is HTML and Dreamweaver is not likely to do any better with Publisher >HTML than FrontPage is. It has a clean up Word Wizard but it is designed to >deal with mso:normal type code. I moderate one of the larger Macromedia mail lists around with over 2500 members. Running it through the FP 2003 optimizer can do a better job. SignatureCheryl D. Wise MS-MVP-FrontPage http://mvp.wiserways.com > Actually, that is apparently not true. I asked this same question in > the Dreamweaver forum, and a couple of people actually took the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >HTML than FrontPage is. It has a clean up Word Wizard but it is designed to > >deal with mso:normal type code. > Actually, that is apparently not true. I asked this same question in > the Dreamweaver forum, and a couple of people actually took the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> Publisher HTML than FrontPage is. It has a clean up Word Wizard but >> it is designed to deal with mso:normal type code. In addition to Cheryls reply, I too have Dreamweaver and FrontPage, and I tested the optimization of HTML in both, and FrontPage had done a better job. SignatureBrian Kvalheim Microsoft Publisher MVP http://www.publishermvps.com This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. I previously tried to move the site into FrontPage 2002, and it was a mess. It could not deal with the nested table html that Publisher 2000 generates. Can FrontPage 2003 do a better job? >In addition to Cheryls reply, I too have Dreamweaver and FrontPage, and I >tested the optimization of HTML in both, and FrontPage had done a better >job. Yes, FrontPage 2003 is vastly improved over earlier versions. FrontPage 2002 was a relatively minor upgrade to FP 2000 which was a significant upgrade over FrontPage 98. The new Optimize HTML setting removes more than just Office mark-up. Course nothing will optimize as well as a person with a very good understanding of HTML and CSS but the new version does a better job than the competitors I've tried. SignatureCheryl D. Wise MS-MVP-FrontPage http://mvp.wiserways.com > I previously tried to move the site into FrontPage 2002, and it was a > mess. It could not deal with the nested table html that Publisher [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >tested the optimization of HTML in both, and FrontPage had done a better > >job. Finally some useful information! Thank you very much. >Yes, FrontPage 2003 is vastly improved over earlier versions. FrontPage 2002 >was a relatively minor upgrade to FP 2000 which was a significant upgrade [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >HTML and CSS but the new version does a better job than the competitors I've >tried. If you look at my site in my signature you will see what is new/improved in FrontPage 2003. There is also a comparison between FrontPage 2003, Dreamweaver MX 2004 and GoLive 6. (I don't have a copy of GoLive CS for a comparison and I from what I've read they have removed most if not all of the scripting components of GoLive in the newer CS release). SignatureCheryl D. Wise MS-MVP-FrontPage http://mvp.wiserways.com > Finally some useful information! Thank you very much. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >HTML and CSS but the new version does a better job than the competitors I've > >tried. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.