Slashdot Mirror
Word 2007 to Feature Built-in Blogging
Vitaly Friedman writes "Microsoft has revealed a surprising new feature for Word 2007: built-in blog publishing. The big surprise is this: the HTML that is generated is actually not that bad. 'Joe Friend, a lead program manager (Microsoft's term for a person who creates the specifications for software that programmers implement) has posted an entry on his blog regarding an interesting new feature being implemented for Word 2007: direct publishing of blogs to the web from within the program.'"
Clippy: I see you're writing something that's critical of a repressive regime. Would you like me to:
( ) Censor your writings prior to ftp upload?
( ) Inform government agents?
( ) Prepare a firing squad?
(*) Do nothing (but fuck up the html)
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
So when can we expect a direct interface in slashdot for MS word users?
Beings aspergers AND pulling chicks... I enjoy the challenge!
You know... if Microsoft integrated a spell checker that shows squiggly lines in Internet Explorer, the main reason I've seen for wanting to use word to blog goes away.
Gotta love Safari for that, I guess...?
Obviously they would claim the HTML produced is "not bad". What do you expect them to say? "Our program is terrible, don't bother using it."
You know, when people are saying that the quality of the generated data is "actually not that bad", with a surprised and delighted tilt in their voices, you know your customers aren't exactly expecting greatness anymore.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Blogs viewable with only IE7 with Windows Vista Cray Edition installed. :)
Oh, and the ability to upload Word macros directly onto the internets! Wow, that should be infallible!! Right, right?
You know what, since nobody else seems to want to do it, I'll go out on a limb here and defend M$ this time. I'm impressed they claimed that the HTML isn't bad. I think it's good of them to man up. Because in saying that the new stuff isn't bad, they're admitting the old HTML code in word was.....and they're taking steps to fix the problem. If you actually looked at the source from the article (which was generated using word), it looked clean and readable. Nothing like the HTML we used to see from Word. On /. everytime Word is mentioned you get the same old responces, "I haven't touched a new verison of word since 97", "they haven't added any new features that are worthwhile", and "I don't even use the program, it's M$ they suck". Fair enough. But can you really complain about them not adding new features, then bitch when they obviously start thinking and try to? Do you think the people who post here are Word's targeted consumers? The majority of people don't really understand that much about computers, nor do they want to. They like to check email, surf the web, chat online, write in their blog, and upload their pictures for everyone to see. So the fact that the new Word might have a blog publishing feature is a big deal for most people who use the lastest versions of Word.
The main effect of this will be that we see even more blogs that use Comic Sans. Oh boy, I can hardly wait!
This guy's the limit!
How do you know its not wanted? There are a large number of less technical people out there who don't know HTML from a hole in the ground. For them creating their blog from within Word would be perfect. They already know how to create a document in Word so their time to create something would be shorter and as such more rewarding. The key thing to remember is most blogs aren't created for the reader, they are created for the blogger.
Is it W3C compliant?
Nope. And that's after he hand-tweaked some of the output.
This guy's the limit!
1) More fonts. 2) More clip art. 3) Themes. Then it can tap into all that teeny blogging energy. "It looks like you are whining about your life. Would you like me to set your "Now Listening To:" music tag to something appropriate?"
Microsoft Frontpage
Need I say more?
The beauty of e-mails generated by Word, the strict adherence to HTML standards demonstrated by Frontpage and IE....
And of course the literary values beloved by blogger everywhere...
Three Squirrels
M-x doctor
I am the psychotherapist. Please, describe your problems. Each time
you are finished talking, type RET twice.
I am concerned that Word 2007 will include direct publishing of blogs to the web from within the program.
Why do you say that?
Because Word's HTML output at any time in the past has always been terrible, embedding hundreds of unnecessary manual font changes, eschewing cascading style sheets, and generally producing HTML that makes a typical web developer want to vomit.
Is it because word's html output at any time in the past has always
been terrible embedding hundreds of unnecessary manual font changes
eschewing cascading style sheets and generally producing html that
makes a typical web developer want to vomit that you came to me?
Yes, I am afraid that eventually MS's Word will include more features
than Emacs.
Does it bother you that eventually ms's word will include more features
than emacs?
Well, actually not. Thanks doctor.
Don't mention.
If you don't like blogs, don't read 'em.
I understand why you wouldn't want to read the "Why I like the color pink" blog, or the "I just took a dump" blog.
But you're bashing on an entire medium. Hell, even television has a lot of good content hidden among the chaff. When you discount blogging out of hand, you're lumping sites like Daring Fireball, The Technology Liberation Front and IP Democracy in with the navel-gazers.
Sure, there are a lot of useless blogs. There are also a lot of useless magazines and books. Personally I prefer a world where there are more mediums of expression, not fewer. Slashdot is an excellent example of this. It could easily be considered a group blog, filled with useless opinions, but it is obviously more than that. Get all your information and all of your opininions from Big Media if you want. I like having more options.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
That's a very valid point. Among my friends is an extremely talented technical writer who spends her *entire working day* in Word. Recently, I coded a collaborative blog for me, her and another friend - a place for us to crack jokes, post stupid photos and generally riff off one-another's slanted sense of humor - took me about 3 hours and I used the FCKeditor for composing the blog entries.
You wouldn't believe her delight when she found herself able to "post something to the internet". She was all smiles for weeks, thanking me repeatedly for setting it up. She now has a huge sense of empowerment and doesn't have to know jack about any nerdly technologies / markup languages. She just goes to the post page, inserts her pictures, clicks the Post button and bam - she's "on the internet". Take my word for it when I say she is beside herself with joy.
So agreed... this feature will be well appreciated and well used by less technical people.
Microsoft wants to compete with Yahoo, MySpace, et. al. as a user-generated content portal. Everyone and his donkey uses Word. If you're already using Word, even though it will support Blogger and other blog sites, I would be surprised if it weren't just a bit easier to use with Windows Live Spaces.
I think of this as somewhat analogous to the iPod/iTunes connection. Everyone has an iPod (yes, yes, I know not *everyone* has an iPod, and that a certain percentage of people just love Ogg Vorbis, but think Middle America here), so iTunes is a natural choice for music downloads. Everyone has Word, so blogging on Windows Live Spaces with the handy new "Blog it now!" feature is a natural choice.
Will it work? I doubt it. There are just too many already available tools that make blogging easy. Plus, Microsoft's brand has been so damaged that I'm not sure even Ma and Pa Kettle are going to jump over to Windows Live Spaces in droves.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Where is your god now?
I see you've never used Mac OS X. It's not bloatware. It's the lack of bloatware. I get spellcheck in an AIM client, an IRC client, an e-mail client, a text editor, a browser... but it's not five different spell checkers, each one adding bloat. It's just one spell checker, that works where I want it... except in Firefox, my default browser du jour.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I promised myself awhile ago that I'd stop replying to posts like these, but it's just so misleading, I can't help it.
You obviously didn't look at the page source as suggested. The parts of the page generated by blogs.msdn.com may have had validation errors, but only one of the errors actually came from the part that Word generated (and he later hand-tweaked). FTFA: "...look at the HTML starting with 'Word is a great tool...'," and later, "Did I mention that this was beta software and we were running hot?... I had to make a few hand tweaks to my post due to bugs (I'm sure our developer would blame it on user error)." In other words, you validated the wrong thing, and this is still just a preview of the final feature. The fact that he described it as "running hot" indicates that it's less finished than most features in Beta 2.
ObDisclaimer: I work at MS and I'm a developer in Office (although not on Word), so I have asbestos undies. Go ahead and flame away.
BTW, I'll save you some clicks. Here's the error that appeared in the actual body of the post:
Error Line 218, column 2: document type does not allow element "P" here; missing one of "APPLET", "OBJECT", "MAP", "IFRAME", "BUTTON" start-tag .
<P><STRONG> </STRONG><STRONG>PS. A little honesty<BR></STRONG><FONT size=2>
The mentioned element is not allowed to appear in the context in which you've placed it; the other mentioned elements are the only ones that are both allowed there and can contain the element mentioned. This might mean that you need a containing element, or possibly that you've forgotten to close a previous element.
One possible cause for this message is that you have attempted to put a block-level element (such as "<p>" or "<table>") inside an inline element (such as "<a>", "<span>", or "<font>").