why not use MS Word to create web pages?

[code_wrong]

the code is pretty much unreadable but it does act pretty much as a WYSIWYG
web page editor ... why do we not see more pages created this way? .. On the
small test I did it does not cause Firefox any display problems ... so why
not? .. it would be great for kids .. they already use word for word
processing .. why not just save a document as an htm file and then post it
onto a web site?

cheers
cw

 

[Toby Inkster]

On the small test I did it does not cause Firefox any display problems

There is more than one brand of browser out there.

 

[Tina - AxisHOST, Inc.]

the code is pretty much unreadable but it does act pretty much as a
WYSIWYG web page editor ... why do we not see more pages created this way?
.. On the small test I did it does not cause Firefox any display problems
... so why not? .. it would be great for kids .. they already use word for
word processing .. why not just save a document as an htm file and then
post it onto a web site?

Why would you teach your kids how to do something half assed, just to get
by?

--Tina

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, code_wrong quothed:

the code is pretty much unreadable but it does act pretty much as a WYSIWYG
web page editor ... why do we not see more pages created this way? ..

Oh, they're out there. You just don't see them.

On the
small test I did it does not cause Firefox any display problems ...

The first cigarette I smoked wasn't at all addictive.

so why
not? .. it would be great for kids .. they already use word for word
processing .. why not just save a document as an htm file and then post it
onto a web site?

Kids can be dangerous when let out of their cages.

 

[code_wrong]

Why would you teach your kids how to do something half assed, just to get
by?

Well I have been unsuccessful in my search for a WYSIWYG web page editor
that does page layout as simply as a word processor. Maybe I can just use
tables in Composer but that is of course considered table abuse .. My target
users are 9/10 years old .. they have barely got the hang of using the word
processor .. it's all about fast results ... they can study the finer
points of web development when they are older ...

 

[code_wrong]

There is more than one brand of browser out there.

Yes I know there are hundreds ... all with their own quirks ... what a
horrible mess .. I am almost glad that Microsoft dominate the market .. at
least that gives us a baseline for which web pages can be tested

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

I am almost glad that Microsoft dominate the market .. at
least that gives us a baseline for which web pages can be tested

<LOL!>

 

[JDS]

processing .. why not just save a document as an htm file and then post it
onto a web site?

It may be an acceptable start into learning how the web works in a very
general way. However there are plenty of tools available that would be
better. Even OpenOffice produces beter HTML code, is free, and is
basically WYSIWYG. (Not that I'm recommending Org for web development,
but if you *must* use a word processor for this task...)

(...hmm. I take it back. I just tested Org out, and it looks like
Org is actually not so bad at all, but that;s another story...)

In any case, here is my real world example of why not to use MS Word.
This example may seem contrived, and it certainly won't affect everyone,
but it is a real example that I actually ran across today.

I built a CMS for a client. The CMS has a WYSIWYG widget in place of a
<textarea> to edit the content. The client cut-n-pasted the HTML directly
from Word into the CMS. Click Submit/update, and poof! It exploded. Well,
not literally, but the page, which is generated by PHP, could not be
displayed even to allow it to be edited again.

The problem stems from the "HTML" that Word generated. MS Word uses XML
gobbeldy gook unnecewssarily to, well, I don't know what it is supposed to
do. In any case, the "<?" opening of the XML stuff broke the PHP page.

Sure, I could design in some better error-checking and parsing of the
submitted data. Sure, I could do something that allows the data to go in
untouched. But the point is that MS Word does not generate valid, usable
HTML.

later...

 

[JDS]

Well I have been unsuccessful in my search for a WYSIWYG web page editor

Free, powerful, flexible, MS OFfice compatible:

http://www.openoffice.org/

 

[JDS]

least that gives us a baseline for which web pages can be tested

that's a load of crap as well. MSIE 7 will come out and fsck up the whole
web design shabibble once again. MSIE 5/6 hacks? Might break. MSIE 7
hacks? Do we need them?

 

[kchayka]

MSIE 7 hacks? Do we need them?

Do you really have to ask?

 

[Michael Fesser]

..oO(JDS)

The problem stems from the "HTML" that Word generated. MS Word uses XML
gobbeldy gook unnecewssarily to, well, I don't know what it is supposed to
do. In any case, the "<?" opening of the XML stuff broke the PHP page.

Caused by 'short_open_tag', which is enabled by default.

Sure, I could design in some better error-checking and parsing of the
submitted data.
Required.

Sure, I could do something that allows the data to go in
untouched.
Maybe.

But the point is that MS Word does not generate valid, usable
HTML.

Yep, but in this case it's more or less the server's fault. Short open
tags don't go well along with XML (it's even mentioned in the manual).

Micha

 

[Blinky the Shark]

<LOL!>

I respectfully nominate that statement (not the "LOL", dammit! <G>)
for quote of the month.

 

[Don]

Well I have been unsuccessful in my search for a WYSIWYG web page
editor that does page layout as simply as a word processor. Maybe I
can just use tables in Composer but that is of course considered table
abuse .. My target users are 9/10 years old .. they have barely got
the hang of using the word processor .. it's all about fast results
... they can study the finer points of web development when they are
older ...

Word was never intended by MS to be used as a tool for creating web pages,
rather a transport medium for returning Word docs FROM html created pages,
back INTO their original Word doc form.

Word uses both bloated and deprecated html.
Word has destroyed the reputation of FP all a result of knowlegeable
webamsters believing the bloat was created by FP.

FP is far perfect and still provides both bloated and deprecated html,
however FP is light-years ahead of Word.

I've spent nearly two years in Word groups in an effort to establish this
points and have finally begun making headway and having others understand
and pass on these same thoughts.

If you desire to instruct children on web pages?
The best place to begin is with some instructional pages designed for
children;
http://webmonkey.wired.com/webmonkey/kids/

 

[Don]

Yes I know there are hundreds ... all with their own quirks ... what
a horrible mess .. I am almost glad that Microsoft dominate the market
.. at least that gives us a baseline for which web pages can be
tested

Here's the kind of crap MS teaches people!

Two amazing ADMISSIONS by Microsoft in this KB!

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=886299

Scrolling Text
This object was created in MARQUEE. This application is not available to
open this object. Make sure the application is properly installed and
that it has not been deleted, removed or renamed."
Note This behavior does not occur on computers that are running Windows
XP without SP2 installed.

Note This behavior also occurs if you use Word as your e-mail editor.

CAUSE
The ActiveX controls were disabled in Windows XP SP2 because they pose a
security risk. There is no supported workaround to enable this
functionality in Microsoft Office.
end of quote

1) MS offered the MARQUEE banner option in free Front Page Express in the
IE 4.01 update in 1999.
The MARQUEE has NEVER worked in any web browser outside of MS Browsers.

2) Microsoft both knows and realizes that ActiveX has security
vulnerabilities and YET,
its activity is BOTH, USED and REQUIRED on most every Microsoft web
page!

Sorta like the pot calling the kettle black ;-)))

 

[Don]

It may be an acceptable start into learning how the web works in a
very general way. However there are plenty of tools available that
would be better. Even OpenOffice produces beter HTML code, is free,
and is basically WYSIWYG. (Not that I'm recommending Org for web
development, but if you *must* use a word processor for this task...)

(...hmm. I take it back. I just tested Org out, and it looks like
Org is actually not so bad at all, but that;s another story...)

In any case, here is my real world example of why not to use MS Word.
This example may seem contrived, and it certainly won't affect
everyone, but it is a real example that I actually ran across today.

I built a CMS for a client. The CMS has a WYSIWYG widget in place of
a <textarea> to edit the content. The client cut-n-pasted the HTML
directly from Word into the CMS. Click Submit/update, and poof! It
exploded. Well, not literally, but the page, which is generated by
PHP, could not be displayed even to allow it to be edited again.

The problem stems from the "HTML" that Word generated. MS Word uses
XML gobbeldy gook unnecewssarily to, well, I don't know what it is
supposed to do. In any case, the "<?" opening of the XML stuff broke
the PHP page.

Sure, I could design in some better error-checking and parsing of the
submitted data. Sure, I could do something that allows the data to go
in untouched. But the point is that MS Word does not generate valid,
usable HTML.

later...

The solution for this is to have the client:
1) Copy and paste from Word and into NotePad
2) Copy and paste from within NotePad to the CMS page.
3) Clean code with all formatting removed.

MS-anything to MS-anything carries the bloated baggage.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Free, powerful, flexible, MS OFfice compatible:

http://www.openoffice.org/

No, it produces even worse "HTML" than MS Word. As a word processor, it's
probably quite sufficient for most people's abilities and skills. After all,
nobody uses more than 10 % of the features of Word. And people who would need
a spelling checker don't use one. (OpenOffice lacks [useful] spelling
checkers for most languages of the world.)

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

the code is pretty much unreadable but it does act pretty much as a
WYSIWYG web page editor ...

Why "but"? You listed two separate problems.

_Advanced_ authors can use even WYSIWYG editors, if they know what they are
doing. Novices should stay away from them.

why do we not see more pages created this
way? ..

People who want WYSIWYG use FrontPage,

On the small test I did it does not cause Firefox any display
problems ...

This most probably describes the inadequacy of your testing more than
anything else.

so why not? .. it would be great for kids .. they already
use word for word processing .. why not just save a document as an htm
file and then post it onto a web site?

Why should they create web pages without understanding what they are doing
and how the web works? To be _very_ ashamed after 10 years when they
understand that but cannot remove their old pages from the archives that
are publicly available?

As WYSIWYG tools in general, using Word for web authoring can be quite useful
and appropriate when carried out by a competent and careful person. For one
thing, Word has good spelling (and grammar) checking capabilities, though you
are apparently not interested in such matters. Word can also turn
preformatted text into a table, add language markup, etc. Of course, being
competent and careful includes using "Save as filtered" and cleaning up the
result by removing the <style> element that contains CSS-like mess, and
writing a good style sheet instead.

 

[Toby Inkster]

The MARQUEE has NEVER worked in any web browser outside of MS Browsers.

Your information is somewhat out of date. MARQUEE has worked in Opera
since version 7.0 in Jan 2003; it was added to Mozilla between the 1.0
and 1.1 releases in Jul 2002; it has always been in Phoenixbirdfox (or
whatever it's called now) as that branched off the main Mozilla trunk in
Sept 2002.

Of course, that still doesn't make it a good idea to *use* it.

 

[Toby Inkster]

I am almost glad that Microsoft dominate the market .. at least that
gives us a baseline for which web pages can be tested

We already have a baseline: http://validator.w3.org