MS Word to XHTML

Discussion in 'XML' started by Caversham, Sep 11, 2005.

  1. Caversham

    Caversham Guest

    Is there any macro / other tool - free or commercial - that can split
    long Word docs into multiple XHTML pages?

    Any comments on the quality/effectiveness of suitable products also
    welcomed.
    Caversham, Sep 11, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. __/ [Caversham] on Sunday 11 September 2005 06:02 \__

    > Is there any macro / other tool - free or commercial - that can split
    > long Word docs into multiple XHTML pages?
    >
    > Any comments on the quality/effectiveness of suitable products also
    > welcomed.


    I would advice you to do the following:

    * Download Open Office 2 beta (openoffice.org)

    * Install it on your Windows machine

    * Open the Word document in Open Office

    * Save or export as HTML

    * Fragment the output as requires, probably by hand (WYSIWYG programs like
    Word have no notion of structure or semantics)

    * Run HTMLTidy on the resulting HTML (find it in sourceforge.org)

    * Modify output to fit XHTML standards

    * Use search & replace for the task above

    * Lastly, make sure your code validates (W3C validator)

    Good luck,

    Roy

    --
    Roy S. Schestowitz | "Slashdot is standard-compliant... in Japan"
    http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
    7:40am up 17 days 6:08, 3 users, load average: 2.10, 2.08, 1.85
    Roy Schestowitz, Sep 11, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Roy Schestowitz wrote (seen on alt.html):

    [...]
    > * Fragment the output as requires, probably by hand (WYSIWYG programs
    > like Word have no notion of structure or semantics)


    This isn't by any means aimed at you personally, but your posting
    triggered a response from me, and it looks as if knowledge is proceeding
    backwards.

    Proper use of MS Word uses Styles, oriented towards the structure of the
    document. (If I had my way, I'd rip the direct styling buttons out of the
    main menu of Word, and hide them away in an Advanced Users menu). Such
    properly-made Word documents are reasonably capable of being converted
    well to structural HTML, and a stylesheet suitable for web use can then be
    applied (it usually won't be the same "style sheet" (= style template) as
    would be suitable for a printed Word document, of course!).

    I had some experience, around 1997-8, with the (payware) rtftohtml program
    - subsequently renamed and marketed under the company name Logictran - it
    had this pretty-much sorted out. I must admit I haven't got experience of
    it since the change of name, but I can say that the principles of the
    original program seemed to what I was looking for, unlike most of the
    other pseudo-WYSIWYG garbage from other places (that offended all sense of
    what is suitable for the WWW).

    With that rtftohtml program, decently structured Word could be turned into
    decently structured HTML, and split on chapter or section headings quite
    automatically, with HTML indexes and table of contents generated
    automatically. OK, there were some rough edges, but at least the
    principles showed up just fine. I find it sad that some 7 years later we
    seem to have fallen back to the stone age of direct styling and
    pseudo-WYSIWYG in most of the Word conversions that I have seen.

    [Note - there are other programs called rtftohtml or rtf2html - it may be
    that some of them do a similar job, I can't speak for or against them,
    I'm just commenting as a reasonably satistfied user of version 4 of this
    particular program from around 1998 onwards.]
    Alan J. Flavell, Sep 11, 2005
    #3
  4. Caversham

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > * Run HTMLTidy on the resulting HTML (find it in sourceforge.org)
    > * Modify output to fit XHTML standards
    > * Use search & replace for the task above


    Tidy can do all of this -- use the "-asxhtml" option.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, Sep 11, 2005
    #4
  5. Caversham

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Alan J. Flavell wrote:
    > On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Roy Schestowitz wrote (seen on alt.html):
    >
    > [...]
    >
    >> * Fragment the output as requires, probably by hand (WYSIWYG programs
    >>like Word have no notion of structure or semantics)

    >
    >
    > This isn't by any means aimed at you personally, but your posting
    > triggered a response from me, and it looks as if knowledge is proceeding
    > backwards.
    >
    > Proper use of MS Word uses Styles, oriented towards the structure of the
    > document. (If I had my way, I'd rip the direct styling buttons out of the
    > main menu of Word, and hide them away in an Advanced Users menu). Such
    > properly-made Word documents are reasonably capable of being converted
    > well to structural HTML, and a stylesheet suitable for web use can then be
    > applied (it usually won't be the same "style sheet" (= style template) as
    > would be suitable for a printed Word document, of course!).
    >
    > I had some experience, around 1997-8, with the (payware) rtftohtml program
    > - subsequently renamed and marketed under the company name Logictran - it
    > had this pretty-much sorted out. I must admit I haven't got experience of
    > it since the change of name, but I can say that the principles of the
    > original program seemed to what I was looking for, unlike most of the
    > other pseudo-WYSIWYG garbage from other places (that offended all sense of
    > what is suitable for the WWW).
    >
    > With that rtftohtml program, decently structured Word could be turned into
    > decently structured HTML, and split on chapter or section headings quite
    > automatically, with HTML indexes and table of contents generated
    > automatically. OK, there were some rough edges, but at least the
    > principles showed up just fine. I find it sad that some 7 years later we
    > seem to have fallen back to the stone age of direct styling and
    > pseudo-WYSIWYG in most of the Word conversions that I have seen.
    >
    > [Note - there are other programs called rtftohtml or rtf2html - it may be
    > that some of them do a similar job, I can't speak for or against them,
    > I'm just commenting as a reasonably satistfied user of version 4 of this
    > particular program from around 1998 onwards.]


    Word XP and upwards stores its documents in XML format doesn't it? You
    could probably write your own XSLT to turn in into HTML fairly easily.

    --


    x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

    # lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
    # remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
    # this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2005
    # explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
    # to duplicate this post.
    SpaceGirl, Sep 11, 2005
    #5
  6. On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, SpaceGirl wrote:

    > Alan J. Flavell wrote:


    [comprehensive quote of my posting, without apparently having anything
    relevant to say about it.]

    > Word XP and upwards stores its documents in XML format doesn't it?


    So what? XML is only a format for defining markup. If the markup
    doesn't do anything meaningful (specifically - if it only creates a
    visual result on a printed page, without having any significant
    structure) then it's not going to turn into effective HTML: it'd just
    be the usual garbage in / garbage out that we're accustomed to with
    Word conversions to soi-disant "web" format.

    > You could probably write your own XSLT to turn in into HTML fairly
    > easily.


    There seems to be some kind of conceptual disconnect here. Most Word
    documents (in my experience) simply don't contain the necessary
    structure for useful conversion to HTML: they've been created as a
    purely visual construction for printing onto paper. It's irrelevant
    what underlying technology you use (RTF, XML, SGML, whatever) - the
    problem is that the source material simply does not represent the
    needed structures, *because the document authors do not put it there*.

    You might as well try to convert cheese into fresh cream: both are
    fine milk products, it's true, but instead of trying to convert the
    one into the other, you'd do better to produce them both starting from
    fresh milk. And the kind of "fresh milk" that's needed here is
    logically structured text markup. Not visual formatting. Until the
    authors of Word documents can grasp that, the prospects for conversion
    of Word to web formats are poor, IMHO.
    Alan J. Flavell, Sep 11, 2005
    #6
  7. Caversham

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Alan J. Flavell wrote:

    > You might as well try to convert cheese into fresh cream: both are
    > fine milk products, it's true, but instead of trying to convert the
    > one into the other, you'd do better to produce them both starting from
    > fresh milk.


    That is a very nice analogy -- I must try to remember it.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, Sep 11, 2005
    #7
  8. __/ [Toby Inkster] on Sunday 11 September 2005 10:02 \__

    > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> * Run HTMLTidy on the resulting HTML (find it in sourceforge.org)
    >> * Modify output to fit XHTML standards
    >> * Use search & replace for the task above

    >
    > Tidy can do all of this -- use the "-asxhtml" option.


    I didn't know about the existence of this option. Perhaps I am using an
    (very) old version of tidy. I wasn't impressed the last time I used it,
    which was over a year ago. I must also have thought about complex cases
    when I suggested the steps above. Placements of images, for example, might
    pose some difficulties, especially if they float.

    Oo_Org will be a decent tools for steering away from non-standard attributes
    and hard-coded fonts. The last thing the World Wide Web needs is more code
    that is 'made up', which non-MS browsers like Firefox must accept and adapt
    to. Sad, yet inevitable.

    It sometimes upsets me that kids at school are taught to compose using
    WYSIWYG paradigms. It only encourages information to be uniterpretable.
    Like Zeldman once said, people used to toss bottles out the car's window
    until they realised the impact of carelessness and laziness (misquotation,
    but something to that effect anyway).

    Roy

    --
    Roy S. Schestowitz | "Computers are useless. They only solve problems"
    http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
    1:35pm up 17 days 12:03, 3 users, load average: 0.67, 0.94, 0.88
    Roy Schestowitz, Sep 11, 2005
    #8
  9. __/ [Alan J. Flavell] on Sunday 11 September 2005 11:19 \__

    > On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, SpaceGirl wrote:
    >
    >> Alan J. Flavell wrote:

    >
    > [comprehensive quote of my posting, without apparently having anything
    > relevant to say about it.]
    >
    >> Word XP and upwards stores its documents in XML format doesn't it?

    >
    > So what? XML is only a format for defining markup. If the markup
    > doesn't do anything meaningful (specifically - if it only creates a
    > visual result on a printed page, without having any significant
    > structure) then it's not going to turn into effective HTML: it'd just
    > be the usual garbage in / garbage out that we're accustomed to with
    > Word conversions to soi-disant "web" format.
    >
    >> You could probably write your own XSLT to turn in into HTML fairly
    >> easily.

    >
    > There seems to be some kind of conceptual disconnect here. Most Word
    > documents (in my experience) simply don't contain the necessary
    > structure for useful conversion to HTML: they've been created as a
    > purely visual construction for printing onto paper. It's irrelevant
    > what underlying technology you use (RTF, XML, SGML, whatever) - the
    > problem is that the source material simply does not represent the
    > needed structures, *because the document authors do not put it there*.
    >
    > You might as well try to convert cheese into fresh cream: both are
    > fine milk products, it's true, but instead of trying to convert the
    > one into the other, you'd do better to produce them both starting from
    > fresh milk. And the kind of "fresh milk" that's needed here is
    > logically structured text markup. Not visual formatting. Until the
    > authors of Word documents can grasp that, the prospects for conversion
    > of Word to web formats are poor, IMHO.


    I fully agree with you on that point. Any attempt at rephrasing the same
    ideas would result in depletion. To suggest ways forward, I suggest that
    the OP, who clearly wants to publish material on the Web, learns LaTeX.
    Shall the idea of editing raw text become daunting, I suggest LyX < lyx.org
    > [LyX: Front-end to LaTeX]. 5 minutes with LyX would help anyone realise

    the difference and convey the idea, e.g. varying outputs, styles,
    imposition of structure, etc.

    Only a few days ago, somebody in the LyX mailing lists mentioned his
    upcoming presentation on "Word: What you See Is What a Mess". The
    presentation I deliver on Wednesday is well-formed XHTML <
    http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2005/09/11/public-speaking/ > and is
    motored by Eric Meyer's S5.

    Roy

    --
    Roy S. Schestowitz | "Software sucks. Open Source sucks less."
    http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
    1:45pm up 17 days 12:13, 3 users, load average: 0.51, 0.58, 0.70
    Roy Schestowitz, Sep 11, 2005
    #9
  10. Caversham

    Stefan Ram Guest

    "Caversham" <> writes:
    >Is there any macro / other tool - free or commercial - that can split
    >long Word docs into multiple XHTML pages?


    I have a macro "Wrocco" that extracts XML from a documented
    including paragraph and character styles and document
    properties, but not everything (no formatting or tables).

    The VBA source code and some links to other resources can
    be found in the project page:

    http://www.purl.org/stefan_ram/pub/wrocco_en

    If you would use any tool to create XML from Word (including
    XHTML), you could then use XSLT to split this into multiple
    pages, I assume.
    Stefan Ram, Sep 11, 2005
    #10
  11. Caversham

    Joris Gillis Guest

    Hi,

    Tempore 12:19:53, die Sunday 11 September 2005 AD, hinc in foribus {microsoft.public.word.vba.general,microsoft.public.word.docmanagement,alt.html,comp.text.xml} scripsit Alan J. Flavell <>:

    >> Word XP and upwards stores its documents in XML format doesn't it?

    >
    > So what? XML is only a format for defining markup. If the markup
    > doesn't do anything meaningful (specifically - if it only creates a
    > visual result on a printed page, without having any significant
    > structure) then it's not going to turn into effective HTML: it'd just
    > be the usual garbage in / garbage out that we're accustomed to with
    > Word conversions to soi-disant "web" format.
    >
    >> You could probably write your own XSLT to turn in into HTML fairly
    >> easily.

    >
    > There seems to be some kind of conceptual disconnect here. Most Word
    > documents (in my experience) simply don't contain the necessary
    > structure for useful conversion to HTML: they've been created as a
    > purely visual construction for printing onto paper. It's irrelevant
    > what underlying technology you use (RTF, XML, SGML, whatever) - the
    > problem is that the source material simply does not represent the
    > needed structures, *because the document authors do not put it there*.
    >
    > You might as well try to convert cheese into fresh cream: both are
    > fine milk products, it's true, but instead of trying to convert the
    > one into the other, you'd do better to produce them both starting from
    > fresh milk. And the kind of "fresh milk" that's needed here is
    > logically structured text markup. Not visual formatting. Until the
    > authors of Word documents can grasp that, the prospects for conversion
    > of Word to web formats are poor, IMHO.


    I warmheartedly applaud your brilliant analysis. You stated your point very clearly.

    It's depressing to see what a tiny percentage of people realize (or bother with) the importance of structural markup.

    The future does not look bright. I have seen so called 'IT-classes' where they make innocent people believe they are IT-experts when they can change the background color of characters typed in Word...

    regards,
    --
    Joris Gillis (http://users.telenet.be/root-jg/me.html)
    Spread the wiki (http://www.wikipedia.org)
    Joris Gillis, Sep 11, 2005
    #11
  12. Caversham

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    > __/ [Alan J. Flavell] on Sunday 11 September 2005 11:19 \__
    >
    >
    >>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, SpaceGirl wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Alan J. Flavell wrote:

    >>
    >>[comprehensive quote of my posting, without apparently having anything
    >>relevant to say about it.]
    >>
    >>
    >>>Word XP and upwards stores its documents in XML format doesn't it?

    >>
    >>So what? XML is only a format for defining markup. If the markup
    >>doesn't do anything meaningful (specifically - if it only creates a
    >>visual result on a printed page, without having any significant
    >>structure) then it's not going to turn into effective HTML: it'd just
    >>be the usual garbage in / garbage out that we're accustomed to with
    >>Word conversions to soi-disant "web" format.


    Word documents, being style based, are easy to convert. Use XSLT to
    strip out all the crap so that all you end up with is basic HTML - <p>'s
    and <h>'s. I wasn't suggested that anything more complicated that that
    should be attempted - but I HAVE seen it done pretty successfully with
    Word 2003 files. In the case of that client (although I wasn't part of
    the team who wrote those tools), their customers would submit Word
    documents and the XSLT would convert them into both HTML and PDFs, and
    the reproduction was almost perfect (styling and colours anyway).

    >>>You could probably write your own XSLT to turn in into HTML fairly
    >>>easily.

    >>
    >>There seems to be some kind of conceptual disconnect here. Most Word
    >>documents (in my experience) simply don't contain the necessary
    >>structure for useful conversion to HTML: they've been created as a
    >>purely visual construction for printing onto paper. It's irrelevant
    >>what underlying technology you use (RTF, XML, SGML, whatever) - the
    >>problem is that the source material simply does not represent the
    >>needed structures, *because the document authors do not put it there*.


    That wasn't what I saw, but like I said I wasn't on that team. As far as
    I could tell they wrote a simple parser.

    >>You might as well try to convert cheese into fresh cream: both are
    >>fine milk products, it's true, but instead of trying to convert the
    >>one into the other, you'd do better to produce them both starting from
    >>fresh milk. And the kind of "fresh milk" that's needed here is
    >>logically structured text markup. Not visual formatting. Until the
    >>authors of Word documents can grasp that, the prospects for conversion
    >>of Word to web formats are poor, IMHO.


    Strange, as I've never had a problem. Generally I have to do it in a
    sort of round-robin of programs; First save your Word documents as PDF,
    then save the PDF as a web page. It works just fine.

    <snip stuff I cant be bothered to read, seeing as everyone else is being
    so fucking rude>


    --


    x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

    # lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
    # remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
    # this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2005
    # explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
    # to duplicate this post.
    SpaceGirl, Sep 11, 2005
    #12
  13. __/ [SpaceGirl] on Sunday 11 September 2005 20:46 \__

    > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >> __/ [Alan J. Flavell] on Sunday 11 September 2005 11:19 \__
    >>
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, SpaceGirl wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Alan J. Flavell wrote:
    >>>
    >>>[comprehensive quote of my posting, without apparently having anything
    >>>relevant to say about it.]
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Word XP and upwards stores its documents in XML format doesn't it?
    >>>
    >>>So what? XML is only a format for defining markup. If the markup
    >>>doesn't do anything meaningful (specifically - if it only creates a
    >>>visual result on a printed page, without having any significant
    >>>structure) then it's not going to turn into effective HTML: it'd just
    >>>be the usual garbage in / garbage out that we're accustomed to with
    >>>Word conversions to soi-disant "web" format.

    >
    > Word documents, being style based, are easy to convert. Use XSLT to
    > strip out all the crap so that all you end up with is basic HTML - <p>'s
    > and <h>'s. I wasn't suggested that anything more complicated that that
    > should be attempted - but I HAVE seen it done pretty successfully with
    > Word 2003 files. In the case of that client (although I wasn't part of
    > the team who wrote those tools), their customers would submit Word
    > documents and the XSLT would convert them into both HTML and PDFs, and
    > the reproduction was almost perfect (styling and colours anyway).
    >
    >>>>You could probably write your own XSLT to turn in into HTML fairly
    >>>>easily.
    >>>
    >>>There seems to be some kind of conceptual disconnect here. Most Word
    >>>documents (in my experience) simply don't contain the necessary
    >>>structure for useful conversion to HTML: they've been created as a
    >>>purely visual construction for printing onto paper. It's irrelevant
    >>>what underlying technology you use (RTF, XML, SGML, whatever) - the
    >>>problem is that the source material simply does not represent the
    >>>needed structures, *because the document authors do not put it there*.

    >
    > That wasn't what I saw, but like I said I wasn't on that team. As far as
    > I could tell they wrote a simple parser.



    I believe that's possible, but it depends on the standard that the author
    sticks to. Word does not /force/ the author to add structural information.
    Hence, hacks are allowed which leave bits hanging aloof.


    >>>You might as well try to convert cheese into fresh cream: both are
    >>>fine milk products, it's true, but instead of trying to convert the
    >>>one into the other, you'd do better to produce them both starting from
    >>>fresh milk. And the kind of "fresh milk" that's needed here is
    >>>logically structured text markup. Not visual formatting. Until the
    >>>authors of Word documents can grasp that, the prospects for conversion
    >>>of Word to web formats are poor, IMHO.

    >
    > Strange, as I've never had a problem. Generally I have to do it in a
    > sort of round-robin of programs; First save your Word documents as PDF,
    > then save the PDF as a web page. It works just fine.



    I have had bad experiences converting PDF's to HTML. I even wrote about this
    very <http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2005/05/24/pdf-to-html/>
    particular conversion because I found it frustrating. PDF involves
    embedment of objects to fit the media, e.g. A4 paper, so it is bound to
    lose what is necessary for a good conversion.


    > <snip stuff I cant be bothered to read, seeing as everyone else is being
    > so fucking rude>



    Are you referring to me? Did I say anything rude? Please clarify if
    possible.

    Roy
    Roy Schestowitz, Sep 11, 2005
    #13
  14. On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > To suggest ways forward, I suggest that
    > the OP, who clearly wants to publish material on the Web, learns LaTeX.


    Well, this drifts somewhat off the topic of some of the crossposted
    groups, but our physicists are accustomed to writing their
    publications in some form of latex, and I can say that when I was
    handling the web-ifying of their publications, several years back, I
    was (for the most part) getting good results from a program called
    latex2html, and most problems were attributable to identifiable
    causes, none of which were usually a major hindrance. (Back then we
    had to make do with the deplorable HMTL version called HTML/3.2, but,
    aside from that, the principles seemed right).

    > Shall the idea of editing raw text become daunting, I suggest LyX
    > < lyx.org > [LyX: Front-end to LaTeX]. 5 minutes with LyX would help
    > anyone realise the difference and convey the idea, e.g. varying
    > outputs, styles, imposition of structure, etc.
    >
    > Only a few days ago, somebody in the LyX mailing lists mentioned his
    > upcoming presentation on "Word: What you See Is What a Mess".


    googled!

    It's really the principles which count here: but in practical terms,
    I'm sure you're right in aiming at a format which promotes >doing the
    right thing< by default - as opposed to one which has prominent
    direct-formatting buttons on its user interface, and logical markup as
    an apparently advanced topic which, I'm afraid, too many of authors
    seem to disdain learning.

    all the best
    Alan J. Flavell, Sep 12, 2005
    #14
  15. [Groups distribution reduced]

    __/ [Alan J. Flavell] on Monday 12 September 2005 17:33 \__

    > On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> To suggest ways forward, I suggest that
    >> the OP, who clearly wants to publish material on the Web, learns LaTeX.

    >
    > Well, this drifts somewhat off the topic of some of the crossposted
    > groups, but our physicists are accustomed to writing their
    > publications in some form of latex, and I can say that when I was
    > handling the web-ifying of their publications, several years back, I
    > was (for the most part) getting good results from a program called
    > latex2html, and most problems were attributable to identifiable
    > causes, none of which were usually a major hindrance. (Back then we
    > had to make do with the deplorable HMTL version called HTML/3.2, but,
    > aside from that, the principles seemed right).



    I use latex2html almost religiously. I estimate that about 1000 pages in my
    site are in one form or another a product of latex2html, which has always
    produced better output than lyx2html, for example. I discussed latex2html
    in depth a couple of days ago and I continue to promote it.


    >> Shall the idea of editing raw text become daunting, I suggest LyX
    >> < lyx.org > [LyX: Front-end to LaTeX]. 5 minutes with LyX would help
    >> anyone realise the difference and convey the idea, e.g. varying
    >> outputs, styles, imposition of structure, etc.
    >>
    >> Only a few days ago, somebody in the LyX mailing lists mentioned his
    >> upcoming presentation on "Word: What you See Is What a Mess".

    >
    > googled!
    >
    > It's really the principles which count here: but in practical terms,
    > I'm sure you're right in aiming at a format which promotes >doing the
    > right thing< by default - as opposed to one which has prominent
    > direct-formatting buttons on its user interface, and logical markup as
    > an apparently advanced topic which, I'm afraid, too many of authors
    > seem to disdain learning.
    >
    > all the best



    Only last night I was in a similar position involving my supervisor who
    heads the Computer Science Department [I believe it is sensible to make
    this public given the nature of the discussion]. For a Windows-centric
    person like himself, who uses Office almost exclusively, it was difficult
    to satisfy a Linux-dominated department. Conversion of a Word document to
    HTML, also to be embedded in E-mail (I must bite my tongue) was never a
    good idea. The final outcome is a PDF attachment with hyperlinks. My
    arguments about standards, structure-based composition and the like seem to
    have led to this result, which I suspect many will be satisfied with.

    Best Wishes,

    Roy

    --
    Roy S. Schestowitz | "Avoid missing ball for higher score"
    http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
    6:10pm up 18 days 13:16, 3 users, load average: 0.66, 0.29, 0.29
    Roy Schestowitz, Sep 12, 2005
    #15
  16. Caversham

    Peter Flynn Guest

    Toby Inkster wrote:

    > Alan J. Flavell wrote:
    >
    >> You might as well try to convert cheese into fresh cream: both are
    >> fine milk products, it's true, but instead of trying to convert the
    >> one into the other, you'd do better to produce them both starting from
    >> fresh milk.

    >
    > That is a very nice analogy -- I must try to remember it.


    The others in common use are

    Turning hamburgers back into cows
    Turning scrambled eggs back into chickens

    ///Peter
    Peter Flynn, Sep 13, 2005
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    7
    Views:
    886
  2. chronos3d
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    777
    Andy Dingley
    Dec 5, 2006
  3. Usha2009
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,133
    Usha2009
    Dec 20, 2009
  4. xhtml champs
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    527
    xhtml champs
    Aug 1, 2011
  5. xhtml champs
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,036
    xhtml champs
    Aug 2, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page