Figure 1 is a snippet of the text from this article, produced using the "save as HTML document" function in OpenOffice.org.

You would never send something like this to a Web site editor. It's just too complicated and would be an unnecessary burden to get ready for their content management system.

Figure 2 shows the same text, generated using Bluefish. I highlighted and copied the text from OpenOffice.org Writer and then pasted it into Bluefish. I added a few tags and that was it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of OpenOffice.org. There are times where the automated HTML generation is useful, like when you need to produce a super quick page. But, you'll have to accept the fact that it might make some decisions that format the page a little differently than the original.

If you view the two snippets, in a browser, the OpenOffice.org version actually has an extra set of paragraph tags that make it look different than the original text. The Bluefish version, looks the same as the original text on the OpenOffice.org Writer screen.

As a matter of fact, I usually do all of my initial content production in OpenOffice.org, because I can get a good idea of how the finished product will look. I then copy and paste the text into Bluefish for tag/link additions and final editing. The process is simple and works for me.

Some people might want to try using Bluefish from the start and do all their story development there. Bluefish will let you write the whole story without tags, if you want. If you save it that way as an HTML file, then view it in your browser, it will come out as one giant line of text, wrapping all the way down the page. That's easily fixed, with some paragraph tags and bold facing.

The OpenOffice.org/Bluefish sequence, is just my personal preference.

If you need to write a lot of Web content, Bluefish lets you add just the right number of tags to get the job done.

Next: Putting Bluefish In Your Linux Tackle Box »