Quote:
Originally Posted by DaleDe
While not blaming word the html it creates is intended for browsers, not ePub. In this respect AWP is better. AWP will also build a HTML file if you wish and that file is similar to the one word does which is not nearly as clean as what the ePub file looks like.
I really liked the HTML file that was produced by Word 97 but since this it has gotten much worse in my opinion. My Word 2002 starts the file by including CSS entries for every type of font that I have on my system whether or not they are in the document. In addition it specifies all font sizes in actual points all over the document even when they are the same sizes which is a pain to fix. Yes, if you use styles everywhere you can use a search and replace regex to fix the resultant file of most of these oddities and a bunch of others but AWP ePub does a much cleaner job as I already posted earlier. Yes you can still make a garbage file by using a word processor as a typewriter instead of a word processor but it is surprising what AWP can do to clean things up even if you didn't use styles.
Dale
|
Dale:
I wasn't comparing AWP to Word. I was simply stating a fact: Word outputs what it's told to output, for all intents and purposes (like almost everything else on computers; it does what it's told, not what's meant). If AWP outputs cleaner code, ala RTF, then, great. I personally don't find deleting Word's CSS at the top of the file that onerous, and I simply use named styles. For a simple fiction title, you have about 10 styles, tops, and that's nothing.
I wouldn't use Word for an advanced non-fiction layout, in any event; if I were to stick with MS, I'd use Publisher (if were a DIY-er, which is what we're discussing), but around here, we use INDD for print or we just code the HTML by hand. Again, that's not AWP's bag, either, as I understand it.
My whole point was simply that I see a ton of Word-bashing all the time, and it's usually not what Word has done inasmuch as what the user has done. If AWP can "funnel" the user in such a way that the output is simpler, or better-conformed, then good for it. But I see massive garbage files (in ePUB) from programs like Jutoh, as well--where the "ad hoc" method of book-writing and creation is still the main method. Again, I'm talking
by the user; I'm not dissing Julian's program. (And don't get me STARTED about Pages! OMG!)
So, anyway: I'm simply defending Word because
most of the cruft seen is created by the user. That was my point. If AWP works better for you, that's great, and I mean it. One of these days, I'll give it a go.
Hitch