On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 03:49, Scott Carr wrote: > Scott Carr wrote: > > I have been playing around with the 2.x codebase as everyone probably > > knows by now. > > One of the problems I have had about using HTML export in OOo is the > > look of the code after export. Well, the xhtml export feature fixes > > that. You talk about some nice codes... ;-) > > > > The only issue is that you need to export an HTML file to sxw, if it > > is not already. Then you just export the sxw or odt file to xhtml. > > To see what I am talking about look at the source for > > <http://qa.openoffice.org/helping.html>. I just updated the page > > using this, and it looks pretty good, and validates perfectly.
Except for the fact that OO.o removes all the SC stylesheets, and replaces them with rubbish styles, m79 is much better than the 1.1.x series. But until some way of importing the SC stylesheet *and using the SC styles in the page* is found, OO.o is still only good for an initial "quick 'n' dirty" start point. The result still requires very heavy manual editing to insert the correct styles. > > Ok, so mabye I should have kept the xhtml extension and it would have > validated perfect. ;-) The extension should make no difference as far as validation goes, since the <DOCTYPE> declaration is what the validator looks at.... (The page as assembled by SC has an HTML 4.x doctype, so XHTML tags will give an error...). -- Alex Fisher Co-Lead, CD-ROM Project OpenOffice.org Marketing Community Contact Australia/New Zealand http://distribution.openoffice.org/cdrom/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
