Article:		QuarkXPress Comes to OS X
Subject:		HTML Export, where?
Date:		2003-08-13 02:04:27
From:		anonymous2
I don't believe the size of the bloated HTML generated by xpress. There are only pictures, for Christ's sake! And they call it HTML export? If I ever see a site built this way, I'll DDoS it, for general safety.

Showing messages 1 through 4 of 4.

• HTML Export, where?
  2003-08-13 04:10:23  anonymous2 [View]
  
  
  Absofu....lutely right. All of you DTPs: Go and create PDFs and print, but do not call something a HTML-file that is a load of rubbish. The Web is something completely different. Go to w3.org and learn something about markup languages, CSS and all of this stuff..... Unbelievable: "HTML-file", "just 360K"! Ever heard of a 56K modem? And you say just 360k to a file that is mostly text? Unbelievable.
• HTML Export, where?
  2003-08-16 11:19:44  anonymous2 [View]
  
  
  Ne need for name calling here. Most designer, giving the tools, would do as good a job as anybody. The problem is with Quark not the designer who trust that Quark as done a good job with their export.
• HTML Export, where?
  2003-08-13 09:06:31  dabeed [View]
  
  
  Hello -- David Weiss, the writer here; points well taken! 360k *is* rather bulky for a page that's mostly text. I was trying to say, use method this only if you need to show an XPress doc on the Web, preserving the original design, if you don't want to use PDF. Or re-design the Web layout in Quark to export the large text blocks as text, and that will bring the size down to normal levels. Or better yet, use Quark to draw a Web page design template, getting all the elements in place before moving to an HTML editor for the bulk of the coding. Thanks, David.
• HTML Export, where?
  2003-08-25 08:27:05  anonymous2 [View]
  
  
  Leave Web design and development to the pros. Eventually people will figure out that having a publishing program convert documents directly to the Web is just as ridiculus as having a tool to convert them for television. When I use Quark, InDesign, Illustrator or whatever I want them to do what they do best. These added features for the Web are a waste. This is why applications like Quark have taken so long to adopt truly useful features such as unlimited undoes. Also the "webified" document from Quark does not meet any accessibility laws or codes. Ever heard of section 508? Would you build a restaraunt without handicap access? I think not. Unless you want to turn some customers away and get sued. In addition to this it is almost worthless to a web crawling search index such as Google.
  
  However I give props to Quark for allowing export as XML this is what makes the most sense for re-purposing documents to other mediums. Especially with the recent popularity of XHTML and CSS based Web sites. XHTML is a strict version of HTML that also allows it to be converted from an XML document using XSLT. In other words the folks that know what they are doing on the web can use the original Quark document exported as XML for the base of their XHTML documents.
  
  As a final thought I wonder what products like these would cost without the added "webify" junk? Help out the software manufactures and let them know that we are looking for real features ones that the application in question was intended for.