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]

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.

 

[analog]

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.

 

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

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.

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.

 

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

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.

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.

 

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

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.

 

[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:

http://animalshare.wantapet.com/animalplastics/index.html

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

 

[analog]

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?

 

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

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:

http://animalshare.wantapet.com/animalplastics/index.html

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.

 

[analog]

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.

 

[Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]]

Hi (e-mail address removed) ([email protected]),
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
http://www.publishermvps.com
~pay it forward~

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

 

[JoAnn Paules]

Young? Me? Thank you.

 

[JoAnn Paules]

Tee hee! I've got socks older than you!

--
JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]

 

[Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]]

Hi JoAnn Paules ([email protected]),
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
http://www.publishermvps.com
~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!

--
JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]

 

[analog]

That is pretty young my friend.

 

[analog]

Honest truth is that I have shoes older than him.

 

[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!

 

[Brian Kvalheim - [MS MVP]]

In

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
http://www.publishermvps.com

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

 

[analog]

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:
http://www.logwell.com/WRFN/index.html