Ok, so my posting was mischievous - I knew there would be howls (and I was
full of beer at the time!). I also know that Word-generated HTML is bloated
with all sorts of stuff - there to support Word features when HTML is
chosen as a document's native format. MS have even provided a filter to
weed it out when no longer needed (well worth investigating). MS is anyway
moving towards XML format, which will offer new opportunities to improve
things.
But does "clean HTML" matter in itself, independently of the purpose of the
page? I don't think so. If you have a page which must load quickly, then
you'd probably optimise by hand, and I doubt anyone who writes a lot of web
pages will choose Word as their editor of choice. But when you have an
occasional document which you'd like to make available on the web, it'll
depend on whether 28 seconds of a visitor's time is worth more than the time
it would take to make the conversion. It'll usually be worth running the
filter, but if the web performance is that important, then Word is not for
you. I'm not immune to prissiness about HTML - one of my sites has a page
which is taken from an Excel spreadsheet, and every time I copy and paste I
shudder momentarily at the redundancy in the resulting code. But it's only
occasionally visited (that's fine by me) and it's not worth additional
effort. Horses for courses - HTML "flower arranging" is not for me without
some real benefit in view.
Darin commented earlier that editing automatically-generated HTML is a
nightmare. So don't do it. The software engineering world is full of
useful products that shrink development times dramatically by generating
code. It's always hideous, but if you're paying for the time of software
engineers that's a compelling deal. The trick is to make sure you do all
editing through the generator, and separate out anything likely to need
hand-optimisation into a separate module.
--
############### #######
## PH, London ##
############### #######
"Stephen Poley" <sb*****@xs4all .nl> wrote in message
news:1f******** *************** *********@4ax.c om...
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:03:37 +0000 (UTC), "Philip Herlihy"
<fo******@REMOV Eherlihy.eu.com > wrote:
Of course. But who cares?
(Further context vanished because the quoted text was part of the sig.
Please have a read of http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/toppost.htm).
Maybe your readers might just care? I tried using Word-generated HTML
just once. It was horrible. My hand-coded version took 2 seconds to load
from my local hard disk. The Word-generated version took 30 seconds.
(That's not a typo - it took about fifteen times as long!!) By the time
it had come from a server over a modem link, you can be pretty sure that
most of my visitors would have gone elsewhere.
--
Stephen Poley
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/