Copy part of the web page (rich text + pictures)

[quant]

When copying part of the web page from a browser (both IE and Firefox) and pasting directly to item details window, it doesn't preserve the style and pictures are missing.

At the moment I solve it in this way: I open empty word document, paste it there, and copying from there and pasting to UR preserves everything with all the pictures.

My questions:
1. do you know of a FREE document editor (or any other intermediary soft) that I could use for this?
2. or is there a completely another way to copy a part of the website with all the formatting+pictures?

Thanks

[janrif]

Originally posted by quant
[snip] My questions:
1. do you know of a FREE document editor (or any other intermediary soft) that I could use for this?
2. or is there a completely another way to copy a part of the website with all the formatting+pictures?

There is a simple extension for Firefox called scrapbook does what you want.

[quant]

Originally posted by janrif
There is a simple extension for Firefox called scrapbook does what you want.

I had a look. It creates a website from the selected part of the whole website, that's nice, but unless I sth overlooked, this is not what I'd like to have. For these things, I use google notebook ...

I dont want to have an item with JUST that part of the website. I'd like to paste part of the website inside an existing item, preserving the clipped formating+pictures, sth really essential, but which doesn't work in UR (or I'm not aware of)! Thanks

[quant]

Originally posted by janrif
There is a simple extension for Firefox called scrapbook does what you want.

... but I must say that is works beautifully for what's it built. I tested it on several pages where I had previously various problems to grab part of the websites because of secured content, various CSS styles or strange javascript. Thanks!

but the original question remains ;-)

Or is it only me who feels that this is really a basic feature and should be an essential part of the UR feature list?

[janrif]

Originally posted by quant
[snip] the original question remains ;-)

Or is it only me who feels that this is really a basic feature and should be an essential part of the UR feature list?

No, I agree & have been looking for such a feature for many years. I don't know what the problem is but it must be a problem otherwise it would exist. I can only hope that in a program as sophisticated as URp that one day it will exist. I hope it's soon.

[$bill]

Originally posted by quant
When copying part of the web page from a browser (both IE and Firefox) and pasting directly to item details window, it doesn't preserve the style and pictures are missing.

At the moment I solve it in this way: I open empty word document, paste it there, and copying from there and pasting to UR preserves everything with all the pictures.

My questions:
1. do you know of a FREE document editor (or any other intermediary soft) that I could use for this?
2. or is there a completely another way to copy a part of the website with all the formatting+pictures?

My quick and dirty method--To copy part of a web page with pictures- I cut/paste, paste special HTML or drag/drop onto an item which creates a new Item (type document). The layout/formating that I get in UR of course depends upon what I cut.

I use the free Nvu editor - a wysiwug html editor or Word if I want to splice several such pastes together and reformat. Using Word allows me to create an RTF UR Item.

Pick your poison--RTF is a Microsoft proprietary markup language. Version 1.9 of the specification contains the latest updates introduced by Microsoft Office Word 2007. (The spec is downloadable at 5.3 MB!) Free editors like OpenOffice support RTF at least to some version of the spec as does the RTF editor module of UR. I have resigned to the fact getting the "right" formating across applications all the time is hopeless...

Any further insight would be appreciated....

[ashwken]

Originally posted by $bill
My quick and dirty method--To copy part of a web page with pictures- I cut/paste, paste special HTML or drag/drop onto an item which creates a new Item (type document). The layout/formating that I get in UR of course depends upon what I cut.

--snip--

Pick your poison--RTF is a Microsoft proprietary markup language.

--snip--

I have resigned to the fact getting the "right" formating across applications all the time is hopeless...

Any further insight would be appreciated....

Yes, you've got to be careful when grabbing a portion of a page to grab enough so that you can be sure to get closing tags (which is always a best-guess) - this may not be as critical in UR as with other programs.

Actually, I've found it just as easy to send the entire webpage to UR as a Stored Copy - this gives you the context of the material, the originating URL as a reference, as a Stored Copy the webpage is available for viewing regardless of whether or not you have an internet connection (something to consider if distrbuting the UR database), and the webpage is available for further processing for presentation purposes in your program(s) of choice.

In this sense UR becomes a glorified File Manager.

Later,
KenA

[quant]

Originally posted by $bill
Pick your poison--RTF is a Microsoft proprietary markup language. Version 1.9 of the specification contains the latest updates introduced by Microsoft Office Word 2007. (The spec is downloadable at 5.3 MB!)

Kinook, could you please explain why did you choose RTF as a base format for item? Wouldn't for example HTML be a better solution? Thanks!

HTML is not currently editable, although it's on the list to support for a future release.

But seeing here http://www.kinook.com/Forum/showthre...=&threadid=809 that HTML will be editable (although the message is 2 years old!!!), I'll probably have all my templates based on html (where it should be easier to copy/paste part of the site) so that my notes don't depend on Microsoft c..p .
Then also obviously would be very nice to have a html export of notes, rather than the current big/clumsy rft files export. In fact, the html export would be welcome irrespective of the above ...

[janrif]

Originally posted by $bill
[snip] RTF is a Microsoft proprietary markup language. Version 1.9 of the specification contains the latest updates introduced by Microsoft Office Word 2007. (The spec is downloadable at 5.3 MB!) Free editors like OpenOffice support RTF at least to some version of the spec as does the RTF editor module of UR.

I have no furhter insight as I'm learning here but your post leaves me wondering why UR doesn't run the latest/best RTF editor module.

[$bill]

Originally posted by janrif
wondering why UR doesn't run the latest/best RTF editor module.

UR uses the microsoft rich edit control and does offer the latest...if you have a new MS RTF module (that you bought with say Word 200X), the option to use it is given at UR's installation...I don't know if the is the best however as newer versions have been reported to be buggy....

Originally posted by quant
Wouldn't for example HTML be a better solution?

I have often wondered about this myself.....

[$bill]

I have found that using rich-text-formating to move stuff between different OS's and software works reasonably well, most of the time, once my expectations were realigned..... :-)

This might be interesting to some....
Microsoft RTF Specification Nightmare

[quant]

Originally posted by $bill
[B]I have found that using rich-text-formating to move stuff between different OS's and software works reasonably well ...

thanks to some people who probably spent unreasonable amount of time decoding rft format with all its intricacies ... sorry for strong words, but the sooner microsoft goes bust the better ... even yesterday was too late ...

[janrif]

Originally posted by $bill
UR uses the microsoft rich edit control and does offer the latest...if you have a new MS RTF module (that you bought with say Word 200X),

The latest is v1.9 that comes w Word 2007. I don't have 2007 so should I/can I d/l v1.9 & install it? Would it make a difference?

[$bill]

Originally posted by janrif
The latest is v1.9 that comes w Word 2007. I don't have 2007 so should I/can I d/l v1.9 & install it? Would it make a difference?

I have wasted too much time over the years trying to answer that question for myself...the spec for 1.9 is 300 pages long and after a quick check of the contents, I don't see a "we fixed this bug" list. Tables have been for me the most problematic and they seem better with newer versions. I suspect that 1.9 will fix some thing and introduce some new problems.

What do I do? If the formating is important or garbled- I clean it up in Word and possibly leave it there with a link in UR.

Remember the world needs early adopters...

[nisced]

Originally posted by quant
Kinook, could you please explain why did you choose RTF as a base format for item? Wouldn't for example HTML be a better solution? Thanks!

Sorry, I am not Kinook.

But here is my comment on this topic:

If you are a software development company (like Kinook) then you have to develop a product that reaches a huge user base. Developing software is a very complex, time consuming and an expensive task. And you have to deal with a lot of bad implementatations (I don't name examples here...).

Considering that around 80% of all PCs and laptops ever sold have MS Office installed then it is very logical that Kinook decieded to provide an rtf editor. Editing HTML is ok for geeks and power users but not for the average. Further, since UR is based on a database engine I suppose that providing an HTML editor will lead to a significant performance issue.

Please note that I am not a big supporter of Microsoft. But the reality today is that the MS Office suite has still the highest market share. And even I am risking to walk around wearing my head in the arms: The versions 2003 and 2007 are not that bad. I am using MS Office 2003 every day and don't have any issues with it.

Dominik