From: Adam 

Rich wrote:
>    Don't ask me but your definition of crap includes standard
> compliant.  It appears that you use the term "crap" for
things you wish
> to whine about without regard to other factors like standards.
>

What complete & utter bollox. Stds compliant? While being built to cope
with IE6'es completely arbitrary handling of "standards"???

ROFL.

So IE 6 is standards compliant in it's handling of CSS is it?

>    MsoNormal is the name of the HTML/CSS class.  I'll refer you to the
> HTML and CSS standards for a description of how this works.  The name
> doesn't matter.  It could have been AdamIsAnIdiot and it would still be
> standards compliant.  Assuming the presence of a class when not declared
> is a violation of the standards.  Again, I'll refer you to the HTML and
> CSS standards for a description of how this works.
>

Oh gosh don't refer it to me, try referring it to you IE6 team coz they're
the ones who built the PoS.

gee here is someone else who seems to have noticed the same thing:

http://www.stopdesign.com/log/2004/01/26/ie_factor.html

"Without a doubt, the biggest challenge I encounter each time is in
wrangling Microsoft’s Internet Explorer browser. This devil does not play
fair. It often follows no rules, and its behavior defies all common logic.
It will double margins for no apparent reason. Borders disappear, 62 pixels
magically turn into 143 pixels. It dodges left when other browsers go
right. I’ve decided to call this phenomenon “the IE Factor”. (Those
familiar with authoring DHTML four or five years ago already know where I’m
headed with this.)"

>    I was describing Word 2003 though the same applies to Word 2007.  I
> give you the html element with the XML namespaces and you try to refute
> this by excerpting some other portion of a document.  Are you dim?  You
> fly totally off the handle with your comment
>

Hardly. Your diversion was so obvious that it's humorous. You witter on
about namespaces where the namespaces are not used given that the HTML part
is in the default i.e. no namespace area.


>
>     HTML 4 stuff is simply using no
>     namespace/default namespace i.e. the comment is completely irrelevant &
>     as usual a canard.
>
> Look at the html element again and note that a default namespace is
> provided.
>


Well full marks for spotting the obvious. Pity you had to try to divert
onto such an obvious ruse. So the HTML has no/the default namspace ie. a
 is simply a  . Gee whiz.

Adam

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