Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Word 2007 to Feature Built-in Blogging

Posted by CowboyNeal on Sat May 13, 2006 09:13 AM
from the rapid-publishing dept.
Microsoft The Internet
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.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Word 2007 to Feature Built-in Blogging 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • 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)

  • Word blogging (Score:3, Funny)

    by caston (711568) on Saturday May 13 2006, @09:14AM (#15324465)
    So when can we expect a direct interface in slashdot for MS word users?

  • Spelling the cause? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rosyna (80334) on Saturday May 13 2006, @09:16AM (#15324472) Homepage
    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...?
    • Check out Google Toolbar [google.com]. It has a spell-checker for web forms.
      It is available for IE and firefox.

        • Re:Spelling the cause? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Oscar_Wilde (170568) on Saturday May 13 2006, @10:15AM (#15324679) Homepage
          And Firefox 2 will have spell checking

          I'm sick of saying this: spell checking is the responsibility of the GUI toolkit not the application. Why does every damn application need to implement its own spell checker? Why does no-one other than Apple and the KDE team seem to realise that this kind of basic functionality should be available in every text box, anywhere in the GUI (but with the option for developers to disable it for fields at design time).

          If Firefox 2 has a built in spell checker then it damn well better have an option to disable it and use the standard MacOS spell-checker (the one I already use for every single other application on my system) instead.

          Don't even get me started on web-sites that implement a spell checker...
            • Custom GUI toolkit.
              Using native widgets for cross-platform code has been tried. It was called AWT (Abstract Widget Toolkit) and was eventually replaced by Swing, but not before giving Java a reputation for "Compile Once, Debug Everywhere".
    • 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.

      Less Internet-literate people (people who don't know HTML, people who are uncomfortable typing in a text editor, etc.) have plenty of reasons to want to use a familiar word processor to blog.

      Heck, if OpenOffice did this, I'd use it in a heartbeat. Blogger has a decent AJAX WYSIWYG post editor, but it's got a couple of inconsistencies and does

      • Re:Spelling the cause? (Score:4, Funny)

        by Rosyna (80334) on Saturday May 13 2006, @10:56AM (#15324876) Homepage
        Less Internet-literate people (people who don't know HTML, people who are uncomfortable typing in a text editor, etc.) have plenty of reasons to want to use a familiar word processor to blog.

        Do we really want blogging to be more accessible to your grandmother? It's bad enough that blogging is accessible to 14 year old girls.

        Current Mood: I pee every time I sneeze.

  • It's Microsoft. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ComradeSnarky (900400) on Saturday May 13 2006, @09:18AM (#15324477)
    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."

    • Your right it IS Microsoft. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CSMastermind (847625) <freight_train10@hotmail.com> on Saturday May 13 2006, @09:39AM (#15324542)
      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.
  • In the last several iterations of Office, I've seen nothing different in Word (besides some stuff being moved around). I'm not particularly interested in a program that will help me blog (or even myself blogging at all), but it's cool that they're actually thinking of things.

  • Not bad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JanneM (7445) on Saturday May 13 2006, @09:20AM (#15324490) Homepage
    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.
  • 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?

  • Not just a tool, also a bit of promotion (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I wonder how many people that start out blogging using MS Word 07 will register for the first publisher on the list: MSN spaces. Seems Blogger is also listed, so it's not all doom & gloom..

  • main effect (Score:5, Funny)

    by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Saturday May 13 2006, @09:39AM (#15324543)
    The main effect of this will be that we see even more blogs that use Comic Sans. Oh boy, I can hardly wait!
    • The main effect of this will be that we see even more blogs that use Comic Sans. Oh boy, I can hardly wait!

      Let's hope the fonts included in vista [poynter.org] catch on - they're actually quite fetching, and designed by some of the greats of contemporary typography. (Props to Lucas de Groot [lucasfonts.com]!) Georgia is gorgeous too, and included with the current generation of windows.. Microsoft actually can do some stuff right; they're paying penance for comic sans..
  • Regardless of how good it is, there's a fair bit of competition in online blogging systems - many webhosts such as 50megs.com have had built-in html-helpers for years. Besides, when I think of Word, I think of letters & CVs & other formal stuff - certainly not blogging!
    As a side note, when the submitter says the HMTL is "not bad", could they clarify that a bit? Is it W3C compliant? (in which case IE6 may have trouble rendering it!)

    • Re:May struggle to take off (Score:5, Informative)

      by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Saturday May 13 2006, @09:49AM (#15324584)
      Is it W3C compliant?

      Nope. [w3.org] And that's after he hand-tweaked some of the output.
      • 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?..
          • You beat me to it. Great the new MS autocode strongs a space...wow count me underwhelmed. Last I allowed Word generated HTML it produced a 600K file of a 4 page all text .doc. All of the office products are astonishingly bad at producing html.

            Sera

    • Regardless of how good it is, there's a fair bit of competition in online blogging systems

      Quick! Phone Netscape and tell them how much trouble programs bundled with Windows have "competing" with the established players.

      Regardless of that example, people will always prefer a package which provides a facility locally to one that operates over the web, even if the facility is web related. Everything works two or three orders of magnitude and more reliably when it's on your local processor using your local di

    • Well, there's degrees of not-badness. Remember Jack Nicholson as President Dale in Mars Attacks!

      Now, I want the people to know that they still have two out of three branches of government working for them ... and that ain't bad!
  • Apple did this with iWeb (as part of their iLife suite) and it is a neat thing; just type and upload. The HTML is isn't awesome, either, but it has potentional.

  • What Word 2007 really needs. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Funkcikle (630170) on Saturday May 13 2006, @09:51AM (#15324593)
    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?"

  • Two Words (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rueger (210566) on Saturday May 13 2006, @09:54AM (#15324601) Homepage
    Microsoft Frontpage [microsoft.com]

    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...
  • An easter egg in the program reportedly allows a waterskier to navagate around a course and ends with a tricky jump over a shark contained in a small netted area.

    Face it MS. Word was pretty much done around 97 or 95 version.

    How bout triming it down and making it not suck for once?

    (Still uses notepad for most text creation.)

  • Wait for the whoops (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Xiroth (917768) on Saturday May 13 2006, @09:55AM (#15324608)
    The first time that someone accidently blogs sensitive company/military information without realising it is going to be hilarious.
  • But will they conform strictly to an existing blog API or do what they did with LDAP and mutate it into something not quite compatible?

  • 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.

  • This feature is so 2001... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jjohn (2991) on Saturday May 13 2006, @10:28AM (#15324735) Homepage Journal

    Most blogging systems have some kind of web service now that allows integration with many editors. On my own site [taskboy.com] I manage updates and deletes [taskboy.com] through emacs (on Windows, no less). I'm curious to see if Word will support Blogger, which is owned by Google.

    Just filling out the web form for this comment fills like writing in cuneiform [wikipedia.org]...

  • 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 [wikipedia.org].

    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.

  • Even more blogs... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hugues999 (906652) on Saturday May 13 2006, @10:44AM (#15324824)
    Where is your god now?

  • If you're surprised, you're not paying attention (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tim C (15259) on Saturday May 13 2006, @10:47AM (#15324837)
    Sure, the quality of HTML produced by previous versions of Word has been awful. Most (all?) WYSIWYG HTML editors went through that phase, but Word certainly took a damn sight longer to grow out of it than most.

    However, MS tools generating decent HTML isn't new. VS.NET and ASP.NET generate acceptable HTML, and it all works cross-browser too. (Some of the controls degrade gracefully in non-IE browsers, but the basic functionality is still there - treeview controls still work, just less dynamically, for example).

    It's nice to see the Office group finally taking a leaf out of the dev tool group's book.

  • Does anyone RTFA? (Score:3, Informative)

    by the_womble (580291) on Saturday May 13 2006, @11:57AM (#15325201) Homepage Journal
    Most comments made so far are completely irrelevant.

    If you read the blog post it is fairly clear that this means that Word will send what you wrote to a blog through a blog API like Atom.

    The means that the HTML that needs to be generated is fairly straightforward as it only needs to mark-up the text on a post and entire page - i.e. all it needs to do is paragraphs, lists, blockquote, headings, <em> and <strong>. It probably will be OK on the details given the the post.

    Secondly it means it will not be doing FTP transfers.

    Thirdly it means that this can only be used by someone who already has a blog with an API that allows posting with a blogging tool.

    It is a perfectly logical step given the MS principle of making a few complex tools rather than lots of simple ones.

    It is not a direct threat to Blogger, Moveable Type etc., as people will still need to host their blog somewhere. Of course MS might use the opportunity to point some people towards MSN Spaces - but the far stronger use of IE to point people towards MSN Search as not got them very far, has it?

    • This "feature" is "surprising": Saving HTML to an HTTP server? Yeah. Real "innovative". Oh, wait, this is a satirical post. Right?...

      Not just any HTTP server.. but blogs.msn.com! Wow! I can't wait to be Microsoft's little ad bitch!

      Should ring in a new era of publishing high school essays on the internet, though :)

      PS: Your post was most sarcastic than satirical.

      -- n

    • Re:Needless (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Steinfiend (700505) on Saturday May 13 2006, @09:49AM (#15324582)
      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.

      • Re:Needless (Score:5, Interesting)

        by shoolz (752000) on Saturday May 13 2006, @10:42AM (#15324811) Homepage
        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 [fckeditor.net] 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.
    • 1 - read the posts above yours. i don't see any anger. there are many people talking about how it's a relatively useless feature, but that's about it.

      2 - it's true, it isn't a feature anyone should crap their pants over. not every blogging service will be able to work with it anyway.

      3 - i would imagine that the setup won't be exactly simple, and a pretty large percentage of the users would be people who don't quite know what 'blogging' is anyway and sign up through the program (if it is available) for a blo
    • It's silly duplication of effort. Why not make frontpage better for this sort of thing - isn't that what it's there for? Certainly I think this is a feature that would be better elsewhere than in a word processor.
      • Frontpage is a separate product, I'm pretty sure. They're aiming at *everybody* that uses Word. Not too many people use Frontpage, I don't think... Besides, most people don't even know what Frontpage is. It's too intimidating for a regular person. Word really isn't.

    • 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 [daringfireball.net], The Technology Liberation Front [techliberation.com] and IP Democracy [ipdemocracy.com] 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.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.