ftp file structure - 2003 versus 2000

[txnmikea]

I am not a techie, so I hope I can communicate this question accurately. I
built a very large website (by my standards - about 70+ pages) in Publisher
2000. To make it manageable, I broke it into various sections, and published
each section into a different folder on my server. They were all interlinked
using a very simple naming protocol such as www.mysite.com/folder1/page1.htm.
In this structure, folder1 was the folder name, and each page was named
beneath that such as page1, page2, etc. I have since upgraded to Publisher
2003 and just spent the better part of a week enhancing my site. I spent the
day today publishing to the web according to my prior file structure, and
it's all screwed up. I have tried it two ways. One, using the default
"organize supporting files in a folder" option on, and with it off. With it
on, it adds /index_files/ between the folder name and page name. With it off,
it adds /index_ to the page name. Either way, all my links from section to
section are all screwed. It would take me another week to go through and
re-name all the interconnecting links. Is there a way I can publish to the
web in 2003 the same way it did using 2000? Please tell me there's a simple
fix, and I don't have to spend another week doing mind-numbing re-naming of
all the inter-links one at a time. THANK YOU!!!

 

[David Bartosik]

Naming conventions have changed across the last 3 versions as illustrated in
differences in my articles -
http://www.publishermvps.com/Default.aspx?tabid=163 and
http://www.publishermvps.com/Default.aspx?tabid=81

You should read my comments on
http://www.publishermvps.com/WebDesign/tabid/29/Default.aspx and read
http://www.publishermvps.com/Default.aspx?tabid=164
Another article on the 2003 version is at
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/assistance/HA011187871033.aspx

The short answer to your question is, no.

 

[DavidF]

David Bartosik's reply is very comprehensive...and tactful. But I would
strongly suggest that you continue to use Pub 2000 to produce your website,
and use Pub 2003 for your print docs. The lack of cross browser support and
very slow loading time are just two reasons I will never convert my site to
Pub 2003.

Both versions can live happily on your computer. You may even find enough
conflicts with Pub 2003 and your printer and video drivers, that you will
prefer Pub 2000 for your print docs too. If you read through this newsgroup
I don't think you will find anyone that has converted their website from
2000 to 2003 that is happy. If you have outgrown Pub 2000, then consider
switching to FrontPage. Just my less than tactful thoughts....DavidF

 

[Rob Giordano \(Crash\)]

With a site that size it might be time for you to switch from Pub to
FrontPage, the site will have to be redone but FP will do a better job of
managing your web than Pub will.