- From: Adrian Sutton <adrian.sutton@ephox.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 12:22:32 +0100
On 01/05/2009 12:03, "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals at opera.com> wrote: > This is an oversimplification to the point of being misleading. > > There are many ways to use Word, and many people and organisations with > haf a clue use it in such a way that automatic conversion can be > relatively easily used to generate highly semantically rich and valid > markup - much better than the sort of tripe one typically finds on the Web > today. I can verify this with a lot of real world experience. Ephox has been selling a WYSIWYG editor for around 10 years now and the single most popular feature is it's ability to copy and paste clean HTML from Microsoft Word. The resulting HTML brings over the structure of the document (headings, tables, lists, images etc) but not the inline formatting so the content then matches the CSS. The formatting and styles can optionally be brought over as well but in the last 3-5 years popular demand has been to match the site stylesheet rather than the original formatting. The biggest challenge in this is actually removing the huge amount of inline formatting and proprietary tags/attributes that Microsoft Word adds. In the latest versions it's also a challenge to put lists back together as actual HTML lists since Word has started exporting them as paragraphs with a bullet from the symbol font and lots of nbsps. Pretty much every editor I know of can preserve the semantic information from Word when copying and pasting, they all vary in how well they strip out the inline formatting and proprietary tags with most doing a fairly poor job of this second part. Regards, Adrian Sutton. ______________________ Adrian Sutton, CTO UK: +44 1 753 27 2229 US: +1 (650) 292 9659 x717 Ephox <http://www.ephox.com/> Ephox Blogs <http://planet.ephox.com/>, Personal Blog <http://www.symphonious.net/>
Received on Friday, 1 May 2009 04:22:32 UTC