Re: Query re authoring tool compliance

Excellent! Are you going to put the document you are putting together 
online somewhere?

I hate HTML that has been done in Word. It puts in masses of code to 
do simple HTML & styles, so the file sizes are HUGE. Its also 
unlikely that anyone will be able to edit the HTML code itself much, 
so you have to keep the word doc that you converted in case you need 
to make changes later.

NZ E-govt has got some information online about some products which 
will "tidy up" word-generated HTML. 
(http://www.e-government.govt.nz/web-guidelines/word-to-html-conversion.asp) 
I guess this stuff is not what you are wanting to hear about (!) - 
but I think they are trying to deal with Word-HTML, for situations 
where you have masses of documents, where it is unavoidable.

Cheers,

Rebecca Cox


At 5:49 PM +0930 30/4/02, Denise Wood wrote:
>Dear all
>
>Another query regarding interpretation of W3C compliance level requirements -
>this time relating specifically to authoring tools.
>
>As many of you aware I have raised concerns from time to time about the use of
>Word 2000 or XP for the creation of Web pages. However there are many people
>who choose Word because it is a tol with which they are familiar. I am
>preparing a document listing all of the reasons for NOT using Word as Web
>authoring tool and am cross-referencing each problem with the relevant WCAG
>checkpoints and ATAG checkpoints.

Received on Monday, 6 May 2002 17:12:11 UTC