[OhioTech]

In Word 2002, Save as html filtered generates html code specifying absolute
font size. Therefore Microsoft Internet Explorer user cannot change font size
(View, Change font size).

Is there any improvement in Word 2007?

Also, Word 2002 generates invalid CSS data.

Thanks

[Cindy M.]

Hi ?B?T2hpb1RlY2g=?=,

In Word 2002, Save as html filtered generates html code specifying absolute
font size. Therefore Microsoft Internet Explorer user cannot change font size
(View, Change font size).

Is there any improvement in Word 2007?

Also, Word 2002 generates invalid CSS data.

Word's HTML features were never designed for HTML editing. Their primary purpose
is fidelity when viewing the document using a browser (Internet Explorer) and
full round-trip capability. Since Word itself doesn't use relative font sizes,
this isn't supported in Word's HTML. There has certainly been no change in 2007.

Cindy Meister
INTER-Solutions, Switzerland
http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindymeister (last update Jun 17 2005)
http://www.word.mvps.org

This reply is posted in the Newsgroup; please post any follow question or reply
in the newsgroup and not by e-mail :-)

[OhioTech]

Thanks for your reply.

MS should take a poll to see how many users actually need the whole round
trip - converting doc to html then back to doc - compared with one-way trips
(doc to html or html to doc).

Why not have an option for one-way doc to html?

A one-way file would be smaller and have the advantage of valid CSS, using
relative font size, enabling the browser user to View/change text size (an
option in Internet Explorer).


"Cindy M." wrote:

Hi ?B?T2hpb1RlY2g=?=,

In Word 2002, Save as html filtered generates html code specifying absolute
font size. Therefore Microsoft Internet Explorer user cannot change font size
(View, Change font size).

Is there any improvement in Word 2007?

Also, Word 2002 generates invalid CSS data.

Word's HTML features were never designed for HTML editing. Their primary purpose
is fidelity when viewing the document using a browser (Internet Explorer) and
full round-trip capability. Since Word itself doesn't use relative font sizes,
this isn't supported in Word's HTML. There has certainly been no change in 2007.

Cindy Meister
INTER-Solutions, Switzerland
http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindymeister (last update Jun 17 2005)
http://www.word.mvps.org

This reply is posted in the Newsgroup; please post any follow question or reply
in the newsgroup and not by e-mail :-)

[Cindy M.]

Hi ?B?T2hpb1RlY2g=?=,

MS should take a poll to see how many users actually need the whole round
trip - converting doc to html then back to doc - compared with one-way trips
(doc to html or html to doc).

Why not have an option for one-way doc to html?

A one-way file would be smaller and have the advantage of valid CSS, using
relative font size, enabling the browser user to View/change text size (an
option in Internet Explorer).

Back in Office 2000 Microsoft provided a filtering tool (MS Filter, I think it
was called). This will still work with any file in the 97-2003 file format, the
trick is getting it to install on your machine if you don't have a copy of
Office 2000 (but it should still be available for download).

At some later point, MSFT decided that Front Page should be used for HTML
editing, and that you could port Word docs into Front Page. So the HTML filter
wasn't brought forward. This same philosophy has applied since early on for
spreadsheet capabilities (use Excel) and more recently to creating forms (use
InfoPath). Admittedly, what it ignores is the fact that many people/businesses
don't want to buy the entire spectrum of applications (which is why the basic
functionality is there). OTOH, a limited amount of funds are available to each
application development team, so they do concentrate on the functionality
central to their application. And since Office XP, HTML editing has not been
considered part of Word's central functionality, but Front Page's.

Cindy Meister
INTER-Solutions, Switzerland
http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindymeister (last update Jun 17 2005)
http://www.word.mvps.org

This reply is posted in the Newsgroup; please post any follow question or reply
in the newsgroup and not by e-mail :-)

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

central to their application. And since Office XP, HTML editing has not
been
considered part of Word's central functionality, but Front Page's.

And now not even FrontPage but Expression Web, Windows SharePoint Designer,
etc.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"Cindy M." wrote in message
news:VA.00000f0f.00c673d5@speedy...
Hi ?B?T2hpb1RlY2g=?=,

MS should take a poll to see how many users actually need the whole
round
trip - converting doc to html then back to doc - compared with one-way
trips
(doc to html or html to doc).

Why not have an option for one-way doc to html?

A one-way file would be smaller and have the advantage of valid CSS,
using
relative font size, enabling the browser user to View/change text size
(an
option in Internet Explorer).

Back in Office 2000 Microsoft provided a filtering tool (MS Filter, I
think it
was called). This will still work with any file in the 97-2003 file
format, the
trick is getting it to install on your machine if you don't have a copy of
Office 2000 (but it should still be available for download).

At some later point, MSFT decided that Front Page should be used for HTML
editing, and that you could port Word docs into Front Page. So the HTML
filter
wasn't brought forward. This same philosophy has applied since early on
for
spreadsheet capabilities (use Excel) and more recently to creating forms
(use
InfoPath). Admittedly, what it ignores is the fact that many
people/businesses
don't want to buy the entire spectrum of applications (which is why the
basic
functionality is there). OTOH, a limited amount of funds are available to
each
application development team, so they do concentrate on the functionality
central to their application. And since Office XP, HTML editing has not
been
considered part of Word's central functionality, but Front Page's.

Cindy Meister
INTER-Solutions, Switzerland
http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindymeister (last update Jun 17 2005)
http://www.word.mvps.org

This reply is posted in the Newsgroup; please post any follow question or
reply
in the newsgroup and not by e-mail :-)

[Breaker Breaker]

How about the "Save As | Web Page, Filtered" option? Has this changed in
2007? I swear I was using MS Word to edit an htm - then did "Save As | Web
Page, Filtered" to prevent Word from embedding styles in the htm. I just
tried this today, and the embedded styles are there! Now, I can not apply a
css to the file!

"Cindy M." wrote:

Hi ?B?T2hpb1RlY2g=?=,

MS should take a poll to see how many users actually need the whole round
trip - converting doc to html then back to doc - compared with one-way trips
(doc to html or html to doc).

Why not have an option for one-way doc to html?

A one-way file would be smaller and have the advantage of valid CSS, using
relative font size, enabling the browser user to View/change text size (an
option in Internet Explorer).

Back in Office 2000 Microsoft provided a filtering tool (MS Filter, I think it
was called). This will still work with any file in the 97-2003 file format, the
trick is getting it to install on your machine if you don't have a copy of
Office 2000 (but it should still be available for download).

At some later point, MSFT decided that Front Page should be used for HTML
editing, and that you could port Word docs into Front Page. So the HTML filter
wasn't brought forward. This same philosophy has applied since early on for
spreadsheet capabilities (use Excel) and more recently to creating forms (use
InfoPath). Admittedly, what it ignores is the fact that many people/businesses
don't want to buy the entire spectrum of applications (which is why the basic
functionality is there). OTOH, a limited amount of funds are available to each
application development team, so they do concentrate on the functionality
central to their application. And since Office XP, HTML editing has not been
considered part of Word's central functionality, but Front Page's.

Cindy Meister
INTER-Solutions, Switzerland
http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindymeister (last update Jun 17 2005)
http://www.word.mvps.org

This reply is posted in the Newsgroup; please post any follow question or reply
in the newsgroup and not by e-mail :-)

[Bob Buckland ?:-\)]

The Save as Web Page-Filtered choice is basically unchanged in Word 2007, other than Word 2007 handles graphics a bit differently
than its predecessor versions and as Word 2007 uses more XML for layout and styling, the 'properties' portion of the HTML file tends
to have more 'stuff' in it. :

'Filtered' was the built in replacement starting in Word 2002 for the Word 2000 Export to HTML. The default formatting and content
of the filter and the 'Filtered' file type output is basically the same, using a combination of HTML, CSS and XML, for example.
Even without round tripping, the goal was to produce a web document that still looked like the layout in Word as far as possible.

'Filtered' never completely removed all of the formatting, it did remove some of the retained parts that made 'round trip' (reopen
in Word without losing any original format or content) possible and the standalone MSFilter.exe & MSFilter.dll set, from the Office
2000 HTML add-in will still work to post-process Word 2007 HTML to remove additional markup,
http://microsoft.com/downloads/detai...0-96FB79B74DED
but as Cindy mentioned, it was never the intent that the Word/Excel/Powerpoint Save/Publish as Web Page features would be on the par
of MS Office FrontPage (now MS Expression and MS SharePoint Designer). You can also end up with a page that looks very little like
what you had in Word when you strip out the formatting.

The settings that were in Tools=Options=General=Web Options that can affect what is included are available in Word 2007 through
either:
Office Button=Word Options=Advanced=General=Web Options
or Office Button=Save As=Other Formats=[Tools]=Web Options
these can impact what is in the 'Filtered' file type.


Separately, the ability to link/import CSS Style sheets into Word is still available in Word 007 through the Templates and Add-ins
dialog (Alt, T, I). These primarily add styles that Word can recognize
( http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa338201.aspx
discusses which CSS attributes are understood by Word) and that can then be used to format a document open in Word.

Built-in, among Word 2007's 267 (I think g) styles are several that are intended to be for Web use, although they're primarily
carry forwards from even earlier versions of Word.
Normal(Web)
and the styles 'Heading 1' through 'Heading 6' come out as
H1 H2 etc in HTML

Saving a Word web document using some of those styles, with the [Web Options] set to 'Netscape 4' and 'disable features not
supported in the browser' will produce, unfortunately, a rather odd mix in Word 2007. While a paragraph of text will start off with
pfont size=3... It is then followed by
span style='font=size:12.0pt;line-height:115%', so that the IE View Text sizes of Largest to Smallest are still ignored, while
in FireFox you can choose View=Page Style=No Style
and the CSS formatting is turned off, but if you use MSFilter.exe on the Word produced file then you may be have the result you want
with relative sizes and also the ability to use the IE View setting sizes for text.


There is also the reverse approach, use CSS to create a Word document 'look alike' http://cssnewbie.com/word-style-outline without
using Word

===========
"Breaker Breaker" wrote in message
...
How about the "Save As | Web Page, Filtered" option? Has this changed in
2007? I swear I was using MS Word to edit an htm - then did "Save As | Web
Page, Filtered" to prevent Word from embedding styles in the htm. I just
tried this today, and the embedded styles are there! Now, I can not apply a
css to the file!
--

Bob Buckland ?:-)
MS Office System Products MVP

*Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends*