Editing Htlml can't be that hard - can it ?
Editing Htlml can't be that hard - can it ?
Author
Discussion

cuneus

Original Poster:

5,963 posts

272 months

Saturday 7th January 2006
quotequote all
Scanned an article using Omnipage 15

Ouput to HTML which has some small formatting issues with boxes, text placement etc which I want to correct

Tried frontpage (no snidy comments) and displays properly but cannot select/move

Tried a free editor - HTML kit (no display) but did painfully edit a bit

Download a trial of Dreamweaver 8 which completely and utterly screws the display (useless)

and I'm not clever to edit the raw HTML!

Document here www.zen90174.zen.co.uk/seac/fastlane1186.htm

Any help appreciated

GreenV8S

31,024 posts

314 months

Saturday 7th January 2006
quotequote all
And what are you trying to do to it?

cuneus

Original Poster:

5,963 posts

272 months

Saturday 7th January 2006
quotequote all
Page 2 the bottom picture is over the text

Page 4 and and 5 are a mess with text boxes

_dobbo_

14,619 posts

278 months

Saturday 7th January 2006
quotequote all
Do you mean this page:

www.zen90174.zen.co.uk/seac/fastlane1186_Dir/fastlane1186_Page1.htm#393217

I can see that the text doesn't flow around the images properly. However the code is a bit impenetrable, all that <ILAYER> crap is horrible, so I wouldn't like to try to fix it manually!

What other output options to omnipage offer?





>> Edited by _dobbo_ on Saturday 7th January 23:52

GreenV8S

31,024 posts

314 months

Saturday 7th January 2006
quotequote all
That HTML looks completely opaque. If you want to reproduce the page exactly, you might be better just going with a scanned image? If you want to keep the text but not fussed about keeping the layout, it should be quite easy to copy/paste the words and pictures into a new document with a simpler structure. Word isn't a very good HTML editor, but I'd have thought it'd be fine for a simple page layout like this.

dilbert

7,741 posts

261 months

Sunday 8th January 2006
quotequote all
If it's any help, I've run your page through the HTML parser that I wrote. The output is the same in the browser, but the source is pretty printed with spaces. It takes a bit longer to download, but its more penetrable if you want to hand edit it.

input
output

>> Edited by dilbert on Sunday 8th January 00:45

>> Edited by dilbert on Sunday 8th January 00:48

cuneus

Original Poster:

5,963 posts

272 months

Sunday 8th January 2006
quotequote all
Thanks for all the help so far (it was driving me nuts!)

Omnipage produces very good PDF's but I was trying to providse a simple alternative

Will investigate editing or recreating by hand (shame the programme just does not work)

dilbert

7,741 posts

261 months

Sunday 8th January 2006
quotequote all
cuneus said:
Thanks for all the help so far (it was driving me nuts!)

Omnipage produces very good PDF's but I was trying to providse a simple alternative

Will investigate editing or recreating by hand (shame the programme just does not work)


Having looked again at the output, it strikes me that it would still be quite a difficult task to edit the format by hand, but at least you can see which tags go with which.

The only other thing that I'd recommend is that you take the file direct from the webserver rather than copying it through the browser. Since the webserver is a feebie jobby, it adds all it's own crud at the top and bottom of the document. If you take the file direct, you won't get the pollution!

_dobbo_

14,619 posts

278 months

Sunday 8th January 2006
quotequote all
cuneus said:
Thanks for all the help so far (it was driving me nuts!)

Omnipage produces very good PDF's but I was trying to providse a simple alternative

Will investigate editing or recreating by hand (shame the programme just does not work)


Might sound mad but if you can get it into MS Word, it has an HTML output option, which may do what you need. Not likley, but if it only takess 2 minutes to test then no real loss.

I reckon it shouldn't be too hard to re-do the broken pages using tables instead of <ILAYER>s (which aren't w3c compliant, hence the dodgy display)