From: "Antti Kurenniemi" 

I don't agree with you on this one. Nothing inside a comment should make
any damn difference if it is altered or taken out, so using comments as
conditional identifiers is not only wrong but also very stupid, and bound
to fail sooner or later.

Antti Kurenniemi

"Rich"  wrote in message news:3f8ddc7b$1{at}w3.nls.net...
   Replace "browser" with "HTML viewer".  It's HTML. 
It's expressed as a
comment for backward compatibility.  The same has been used in the past for
other HTML constructs like script.

   None of this has anything to do with spam.  George made a bad assumption
and failed to test these.  He has only himself to blame.

Rich

  "John Beamish"  wrote in message
news:3f8dd908{at}w3.nls.net...
  Not a good example, Rich.

  The opening sentence on the page reads "One of the most common operations
performed in a Web page is to detect the browser type and version. "

  George was talking about using Word for an email editor.  Web pages and
email/spammail are hardly likely to be overlapping sets.

    "Rich"  wrote in message news:3f8da505$1{at}w3.nls.net...
       These are not comments to be read.  These are conditional comments
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/overview/ccomment_ovw.asp)
and have meaning.

       You have only yourself to blame for deploying something you obviously
did not test.

    Rich

      "Geo."  wrote in message
news:3f8d9f59$1{at}w3.nls.net...

      Well Microsoft to the rescue.. All the idiots who use Word 10 as their
email
      editor are now generating code with tons of comments like:

      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      

      I mean come on people, is anyone at Microsoft even thinking about how
this
      affects things, do they WANT more spam? What are you guys thinking,
someone
      actually reads the SOURCE besides email admins trying to filter the
crap?

      Geo.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5