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

[Mertens]

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]

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]

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]

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:
[url]www.davidbartosik.com[/url]
enter to win Pub 2003:
[url]www.davidbartosik.com/giveaway.aspx[/url]


<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:
>

> >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]

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:
[url]www.davidbartosik.com[/url]
enter to win Pub 2003:
[url]www.davidbartosik.com/giveaway.aspx[/url]


<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,

>

[David Bartosik - MS MVP]

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 [url]www.davidbartosik.com/pub11.htm[/url]
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:
[url]www.davidbartosik.com[/url]
enter to win Pub 2003:
[url]www.davidbartosik.com/giveaway.aspx[/url]


"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,

[Mertens]

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:

[url]http://animalshare.wantapet.com/animalplastics/index.html[/url]

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 [url]www.davidbartosik.com/pub11.htm[/url]
> 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:
> [url]www.davidbartosik.com[/url]
> enter to win Pub 2003:
> [url]www.davidbartosik.com/giveaway.aspx[/url]
>
>
> "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]

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.

[David Bartosik - MS MVP]

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:
[url]www.davidbartosik.com[/url]
enter to win Pub 2003:
[url]www.davidbartosik.com/giveaway.aspx[/url]


"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:
>
> [url]http://animalshare.wantapet.com/animalplastics/index.html[/url]
>
> 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 [url]www.davidbartosik.com/pub11.htm[/url]
> > 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:
> > [url]www.davidbartosik.com[/url]
> > enter to win Pub 2003:
> > [url]www.davidbartosik.com/giveaway.aspx[/url]
> >
> >
> > "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]

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]]

Hi [email]analog@logwell.com[/email] (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
[url]http://www.publishermvps.com[/url]
~pay it forward~

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

[JoAnn Paules]

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:
>

>>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.

>

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

[JoAnn Paules]

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 [email]analog@logwell.com[/email] (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
> [url]http://www.publishermvps.com[/url]
> ~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 ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 6/18/2004

[Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]]

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
[url]http://www.publishermvps.com[/url]
~pay it forward~

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

[JoAnn Paules]

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
> [url]http://www.publishermvps.com[/url]
> ~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 ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 6/18/2004

[analog@logwell.com]

That is pretty young my friend.

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

>Hi [email]analog@logwell.com[/email] (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]

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]

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:
>

>>Hi [email]analog@logwell.com[/email] (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.

>

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

[Brian Kvalheim - [MS MVP]]

In news:mcled05tag9csoc5knd6nou8rhfrlghe8g@4ax.com,
[email]analog@logwell.com[/email] <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
[url]http://www.publishermvps.com[/url]

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

[analog@logwell.com]

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:
[url]http://www.logwell.com/WRFN/index.html[/url]

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:

>> 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.