-
Website
http://www.scobleizer.com/ -
Original page
http://scobleizer.com/2006/05/17/microsoft-word-generates-clean-html-for-blogs/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
danja
44 comments · 4 points
-
polizeros
52 comments · 1 points
-
AndyBeard
69 comments · 4 points
-
Zachary Adam Cohen
35 comments · 8 points
-
dbarefoot
40 comments · 3 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
World-brand-building mistakes France’s entrepreneurs make
2 weeks ago · 181 comments
-
The best and worst thing Twitter did in 2009: RT
3 days ago · 24 comments
-
2010: the year SEO isn’t important anymore
1 week ago · 67 comments
-
iPhone developers abandoning app model for HTML5?
1 week ago · 52 comments
-
A new addition here: the Meebo bar
2 days ago · 8 comments
-
World-brand-building mistakes France’s entrepreneurs make
Would be nice to have this be clean HTML. Looking forward to trying Office 2007 and see if it improves the situation.
Now people can write tools to steal my content, whereas earlier they would have had to copy paste.
I might even use it for blogging directly to some of the given hosts or otherwise I would try to get the HTML code out of it.
Make that thing nice, and I can stop bitching about stupid blog editors which do not get the basics about windows software UI.
This mentality totally escapes me. Just because the sheep don't understand why something is important, that doesn't make it any less important! That's a lazy answer, and if you think people who don't implement RSS on their websites should be fired, than people with this mentality should be double-fired. :)
There's a lot of things that our country has had to deal with because no one has stepped up to challenge the status quo. But boy, when that person steps up, it changes everything. Microsoft needs to be promoting managers who are willing to say that even though this is harder and might cost more, it's the right thing to do for our customers (whether the customers know it or not).
MS team has taken the step in the right direction (xhtml markup). Lets hope the MS Word developers take the extra step to include alternate font families (including generics) in the generated CSS so that xhtml presentation degrades gracefully in cases where new fonts are used.
And more importantly - for the benefit of application developers (like us), MS Word team should extend the current work to support xhtml markup in clipboard operations (copy/paste, drag and drop etc).
So I'll most likely be trying to slide "Gee, if you only used the OpenOffice.org suite we could do this the easy way, but instead you'll have to enter things twice, too bad you use Microsoft software" into the conversation.
Which adds my voice to the chorus of "fire the guy who said 'normal people don't care about HTML quality.'" Your existing customers may not care, but those of us who deliberately try not to be your customers for precisely these sorts of reasons might not be so far from the fold if those project managers had cared a little bit more about software quality.
By generating clean HTML it will greatly increase the productivity of our writers.
Any step to improve the situation is welcomed.
Thanks for sharing the inside scoop on the future "cleanness". It would sure make things easier at work to get working webpages. Since the inclusion of the ability to publish html from Word, folks have been able to create any old crap.(No offense, probably their fault as much as anything.) But the big reason is that it hides what it is doing, and they feel what they don't see doesn't hurt.
I'm truly shocked to read the quotes above though, even from Microserfs. For a minute I'm tempted to believe you made those up just to humor 'those that hate Microsoft'. Do professional software engineers really say those sorts of things and mean it?
Keep up giving us these insights either way.
It's nice to hear that Word can yet have a role in web publishing in the modern web - while maybe there are better tools out there, few have the sheer accessibility of Word.
Mat
I saw this, and I suppose it's nice to add a new feature beyond a shell that blends into the Windows environment, but isn't this just the Word team adding features for the sake of adding features? Were there people clamoring for this?
I've had to sort out a web page created using a dynamic edit control where the user had pasted Word text into the WYSIWYG edit box. He cared that it looked a mess by the time it was rendered on a web page.
If that's not the purpose, it's certainly an effect.
I think there's a certain level of doublethink going on at Microsoft. In the past, you could at least be open internally about anti-competitive moves like integrating IE into the OS (Brad Silverberg's famous comment about the pressure to do "unnatural and losing things to 'protect' Windows" and fear that "trying to win the Internet using Windows is a losing strategy"), but now there's too much risk of a conversation like that coming to light via subpoena (as Brad's did).
There are still so many little details of Windows and MS software that are clearly attempts to achieve lock-in (why is the MP3 ripping support in my Media Player limited to only 56kbps quality, if not to steer me into using WMA?). Someone's taken the decision to pursue a lock-in strategy there, but how is this stuff discussed? Face-to-face in a sauna to avoid bugging? By exchanging memos on rice paper?
Not only is lock-in annoying, but in an age of software distribution via HTTP, it's going to get increasingly ineffective. When I can download iTunes and VLC, why would I stick with crappy WMP? Users might not fully understand why they can't turn up the MP3 quality slider, but they'll certainly have learnt that it's better to try and find an alternative that works properly than try to fix the Microsoft solution.
There's a conversation that's worth having within Microsoft. Lock-in is lame and it doesn't work, so why don't you eradicate it? Does Hotmail have free POP access for everyone yet, like Gmail does? Does *every* app have an Export button as well as an Import button (and is the output in an open format like OPML? and is it human readable or hopelessly munged and riddled with CDATA?)
If MS apps are truly offering the best experience, and not just relying on bundling and lock-in, then they should let users get their data out in useful formats. The Word team has taken a step in the right direction.
Just like Dream Weaver, our blog editor (Zoundry), also has to do "special work" to clean up MS Word generated content. The Word's "Save as Filtered HTML" helps, but we found most users simply copy and paste from MS Word (can't blame them).
In our case, (in addition for validation), we have to go to great pains to clean up (at least we try) the content so that we have a well formed xml document (which we need to use as a in-memory memory model).
I just checked windows media player ver 10
and it seems to allow mp3 up to 320 Kbps.
And the max for Windows Media Audio is 192Kbps.
There is a lossless option that goes up to 940Kbps.
I happen to believe that you are right about previous versions. So hopefully other things will continue in this direction (of competative sotware).
I for one think this is the strongest reason to upgrade my version of Outlook and Word so long as the metaweblog API and Atom publication support allow me to blog to a variety of blogging tools and not just Spaces.
I wonder if Microsoft could go further and fully support CSS for template formatting in Word and JavaScript for macros.
For a while I was using Textism Word Cleaner tool, and that worked well. Looking forward to this new feature... hopefully they'll extend it to the rest of the Office suite (at least the ones that support "Save as web page".
BTW, it seems they've ported that to (or maybe it was ported from) Microsoft Windows Live Writer. Now, I think this is a very cool tool. Works nicely with WordPress after some minimal changes to web config. I've documented it in my blog though.
I can take any Word 97-2003 document and copy past directly to the web - discussion boards etc and all formatting is preserved without stupid [FONT] tags inserted all over the text that is pasted.
But try doing that in Word 2007! It just doesn't work. About the best I can get from it is letting 2007 removing all my work put into formatting the text -- and then paste it.
What a pain!
How can I get the simple copy-paste-that-works feature of Word 97-2003?
Bob
http://www.documentsfortheweb.com/free/
Fred
http://www.webmastersherpa.com/content/useful-c...
Regards,
Jeff