Description: Exporting slides from Impress as as a single HTML file results in a file with only text and no pictures. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Create set of slides with visual elements like picture and drawing objects 2. File > Export > HTML 3. In the HTML export dialogue: Next > Publication type: Single-document HTML > Create 4. No need to name it, can click "Cancel" 5. Open resulting single HTML file in a web browser Actual Results: No visual elements in the resulting HTML file: no background, no image, no shape. Only text. Expected Results: Something more similar to the option "Standard HTML format", in which slides are rendered as pictures (although the issue of accessibility remains, as text is not parsable, as described in Bug 119782) Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: No Additional Info: Tested with: Version: 7.3.0.0.alpha0+ / LibreOffice Community Build ID: f446a203fa2897bab8ae7686c948a8bf060675c6 CPU threads: 8; OS: Linux 4.15; UI render: default; VCL: gtk3 Locale: en-AU (en_AU.UTF-8); UI: en-US TinderBox: Linux-rpm_deb-x86_64@86-TDF, Branch:master, Time: 2021-06-24_15:16:38 Calc: threaded Version: 7.2.0.0.beta1 / LibreOffice Community Build ID: c6974f7afec4cd5195617ae48c6ef9aacfe85ddd CPU threads: 8; OS: Linux 4.15; UI render: default; VCL: gtk3 Locale: en-AU (en_AU.UTF-8); UI: en-US Calc: threaded Version: 7.0.6.2 Build ID: 144abb84a525d8e30c9dbbefa69cbbf2d8d4ae3b CPU threads: 8; OS: Linux 4.15; UI render: default; VCL: gtk3 Locale: en-AU (en_AU.UTF-8); UI: en-US Calc: threaded
Created attachment 173345 [details] example slides to export
Created attachment 173346 [details] slides exported to single HTML with LO 7.2 beta1
Created attachment 173347 [details] html generated with 706 I think it's fine for me with default values to export. Version: 7.0.5.2 (x64) Build ID: 64390860c6cd0aca4beafafcfd84613dd9dfb63a CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 10.0 Build 21390; UI render: Skia/Raster; VCL: win Locale: es-ES (es_ES); Interfaz: es-ES Calc: CL
Created attachment 173348 [details] html generated with 706, with all files Sorry, only html was upload, attached all files in a zip.
@m.a.riosv: this report is about the "single-document HTML" option (the third option in the HTML export dialogue). Can you please try with that option?
Observed behavior with no image of slides with the legacy HTML export dialog is valid. But the entire HTML export should have been removed as in dupe. PDF is the valid means of distributing ODF documents and presentations. Currently if images were embedded they would likely be base64 encoded PNG bitmap--but done as an SVG could be browser rendered, but bug 100498 quashed that. The HTML 4.0.1 Transitional based filter needs to go completely. Something else, HTML 5 and ARIA content that is WCAG 2.1 compliant--probably SVG graphic based, would be a nice enhancement but it belongs in an extension. This, adding base64 encoded bitmap images to HTML 4 markup, is a clear => WF *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 105303 ***
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #6) > Observed behavior with no image of slides with the legacy HTML export dialog > is valid. But the entire HTML export should have been removed as in dupe. > PDF is the valid means of distributing ODF documents and presentations. > > Currently if images were embedded they would likely be base64 encoded PNG > bitmap--but done as an SVG could be browser rendered, but bug 100498 quashed > that. > > The HTML 4.0.1 Transitional based filter needs to go completely. > > Something else, HTML 5 and ARIA content that is WCAG 2.1 compliant--probably > SVG graphic based, would be a nice enhancement but it belongs in an > extension. > > This, adding base64 encoded bitmap images to HTML 4 markup, is a clear => WF > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 105303 *** Thanks, Stuart. Just one thought: if HTML is to disappear as an option, and given that PDF gets a lot of criticism accessibility-wise, what would then remain for an accessible export? A third-party extension that might not ever be created? I am very new to how features are judged to belong to features or core, but I don't think an accessible SVG (or whatever else accessible format) export should be an optional extension that might or might not exist. Am I missing something?
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #6) > Observed behavior with no image of slides with the legacy HTML export dialog > is valid. But the entire HTML export should have been removed as in dupe. > PDF is the valid means of distributing ODF documents and presentations. > > Currently if images were embedded they would likely be base64 encoded PNG > bitmap--but done as an SVG could be browser rendered, but bug 100498 quashed > that. > > The HTML 4.0.1 Transitional based filter needs to go completely. > > Something else, HTML 5 and ARIA content that is WCAG 2.1 compliant--probably > SVG graphic based, would be a nice enhancement but it belongs in an > extension. > > This, adding base64 encoded bitmap images to HTML 4 markup, is a clear => WF > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 105303 *** [sorry, typo in previous message] Thanks, Stuart. Just one thought: if HTML is to disappear as an option, and given that PDF gets a lot of criticism accessibility-wise, what would then remain for an accessible export? A third-party extension that might not ever be created? I am very new to how features are judged to belong to extensions or core, but I don't think an accessible SVG (or whatever else accessible format) export should be an optional extension that might or might not exist. Am I missing something?
(In reply to stragu from comment #8) > > Thanks, Stuart. > Just one thought: if HTML is to disappear as an option, and given that PDF > gets a lot of criticism accessibility-wise, what would then remain for an > accessible export? A third-party extension that might not ever be created? I > am very new to how features are judged to belong to extensions or core, but > I don't think an accessible SVG (or whatever else accessible format) export > should be an optional extension that might or might not exist. > Am I missing something? HTML won't disappear as an option, just the wizard and other options besides the single-document HTML export. A good HTML5 export (not one that creates images of the slides and presents those in a html page) should still be implemented (IMHO), but is not a priority in any way. The current single-document HTML export is mainly used for indexing, that's why it is very basic, but anyone is free to work on it to make it more advanced.