By design, this module disables the BODY field for nodes types for which Word2Web conversion is enabled. As I understand it, the rationale is that the module is intended to enable using Word docs as the canonical source matter for nodes of a specified type. (This actually kept me away from the module for a long time because I didn't understand that the Word docs were actually plugged into the BODY field as HTML. I'm so happy I revisited it and tried it out, because it's saved me probably two hours of really numbing copy/paste/format work. [It saves me that work because your filter from Word HTML to HTML is much, much cleaner than the copy-paste filters I've been able to try.])

I understand the application for this; however, that's not how I've found this module to be useful. What I've found it useful for is for the initial bulk import of pages from Word -- pages would then be maintained as nodes, not as Word docs. For normal web pages, not part of documentation or not representing web versions of some canonical source, it's better from a layout and presentation perspective to maintain the pages as HTML in the node, rather than always going back to Word. I have seen things in issues that imply that other people are using it similarly.

The way you have to do that with the module right now is:

  • Enable the module for the content type you want to import to.
  • Create, clone or edit and upload the Word HTML for that page. (I try to group multiple pages as much as possible to ensure I don't have to repeat this process.)
  • Disable the Word2Web module for the content type.
  • Edit the nodes to format the pages and add images. ([a] haven't yet made the image import work, and [b] that's not how we need to handle our image workflow)
  • Lather, rinse, repeat as necessary.

It's not an arduous workflow, especially if you can group multiple imports. But it would be great if we could have an option to just leave the content type enabled for Word2Web.

Right now, Word2Web appends text to what's in the BODY field. It leaves the text in a DIV (which has to be manually deleted to make the teasers work correctly). The better solution in this use-case would be to replace the text in the field. (If you're uploading a whole new Word doc, you probably want to start from scratch anyway.) I don't see this as that dangerous, because people can just enable revision tracking and still have access to their old page -- even revert it so they can review/edit the revision, or use with Revisions in Moderation.

I realize maintenance is not real active on this; just putting that out there. It could make the module useful to a whole new population of users.