Copying HTML Basic isn't... basic?

When I try to copy as HTML Basic, I still get complicated html that looks like this:

It doesn’t look any different from when I copy with regular HTML. I assumed it would be simplified

tags and not this mess. It is making posting chapters to forums for review extremely frustrating and time-consuming. Is there a fix for this?

Thank you!

I’ve never used those options before, but I just did a quick test and it appears that the difference between the two is that in Basic HTML you don’t get the tag with the font info.

If you want all the rest of the style stuff out - you could paste the HTML into Notepad or something and then do a FInd/Replace - replace it all with nothing. You may have to do it a few times if you’ve changed your formatting within your document.

Or maybe if you compiled to HTML, would that work out better?

Huh. I wonder why Scrivener’s definition of basic still includes unnecessary and obtrusive style coding. I think I’ll be submitting this as a suggestion in the Wish List Forum.

Could be a bug?

I certainly wouldn’t have expected that output as “basic HTML” (and looking into it more, I am still seeing the tag in a few places even when copied as Basic).

Have to wait for somebody that knows something to chime in - I didn’t even know Scriv could do that. :blush:

Edit: From the manual

So I’m guessing it’s probably a bug. I can check later tonight and see what output Mac Scriv gives.

It’s possible this is just a Windows thing, but if it does things differently in Mac, that won’t help me much. I’m glad someone else things it’s weird that the basic html coding is still pretty complicated. Thank you for checking :slight_smile:

No, but it could at least give us a hint as to whether that’s the intended behaviour.

Mac Scriv actually has 3 copy to HTML options: HTML; HTML (Basic using

and ); and HTML (Basic using
).

I did a very simple test and all the margin & other style info did not appear in either of the Basic options. So this is either a bug, not possible at all on Windows due to the tool kit used, or just something where you’ll have to wait for feature parity.

Judging by AmberV’s response, (viewtopic.php?f=4&t=29933#p190556) it might be a toolkit issue.