Publisher html & Dreamweaver

[analog@logwell.com]

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
[email]analog@logwell.com[/email]

[David Bartosik - MS MVP]

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.

--
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:akbkb09tc4au6nnba2e1ntjs2k62qql3h6@4ax.com...

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

[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.


On Sun, 30 May 2004 14:09:40 -0500, "David Bartosik - MS MVP"
<forums@davidbartosik.com> wrote:

>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.

[Cheryl Wise]

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.


--
Cheryl D. Wise
MS-MVP-FrontPage
[url]http://mvp.wiserways.com[/url]

<analog@logwell.com> wrote in message
news:60fkb094r1ndg0vki6j3ard7ec60l4l731@4ax.com...

> Thanks, I did that. But if it cannot be done, they might still be
> hanging around here out of desparation, like I am.
>
>
> On Sun, 30 May 2004 14:09:40 -0500, "David Bartosik - MS MVP"
> <forums@davidbartosik.com> wrote:
>

> >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.

>

[analog@logwell.com]

Actually, that is apparently not true. I asked this same question in
the Dreamweaver forum, and a couple of people actually took the
[url]www.logwell.com[/url] 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.

[Cheryl Wise]

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.

--
Cheryl D. Wise
MS-MVP-FrontPage
[url]http://mvp.wiserways.com[/url]


<analog@logwell.com> wrote in message
news:niqmb0hf0l0jk7vlv9bq6vsvhpislg0eks@4ax.com...

> Actually, that is apparently not true. I asked this same question in
> the Dreamweaver forum, and a couple of people actually took the
> [url]www.logwell.com[/url] 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.

>

[Brian Kvalheim - [MS MVP]]

In news:niqmb0hf0l0jk7vlv9bq6vsvhpislg0eks@4ax.com,
[email]analog@logwell.com[/email] <analog@logwell.com> posted:

> Actually, that is apparently not true. I asked this same question in
> the Dreamweaver forum, and a couple of people actually took the
> [url]www.logwell.com[/url] 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.

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.
--
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 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.

[Cheryl Wise]

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.

--
Cheryl D. Wise
MS-MVP-FrontPage
[url]http://mvp.wiserways.com[/url]


<analog@logwell.com> wrote in message
news:qgonb016c02s5ae9g16hi8fuk8r7jp4351@4ax.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
> 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.

>

[analog@logwell.com]

Finally some useful information! Thank you very much.

On Mon, 31 May 2004 22:28:28 -0500, "Cheryl Wise"
<newsgroups@wiserways.net> wrote:

>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.

[Cheryl Wise]

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).

--
Cheryl D. Wise
MS-MVP-FrontPage
[url]http://mvp.wiserways.com[/url]


<analog@logwell.com> wrote in message
news:si4ob099orvo4ud77gp1du7d4vh2mfiu06@4ax.com...

> Finally some useful information! Thank you very much.
>
> On Mon, 31 May 2004 22:28:28 -0500, "Cheryl Wise"
> <newsgroups@wiserways.net> wrote:
>

> >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.

>