From: Ad 

Rich wrote:
>    Keep lying if it makes you feel better.

I'm not lying, you're spinning. I'm sure you're going to keep spinning. I
have no idea if a constantly changing velocity makes you feel better.

  The class attribute, the one
> you are deleting in your example, is standard HTML.  See
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#h-7.5.2.
>

Duuuuhhhh I know that. It's more the fact that every damn element has
MsoNormal on it. For no damn reason. Increases the size of the file by
quite a margin (esp when added up with all the other MS/Word crap which
gets shoved it).

Instead MS could have taken an "if no class set assume MsoNormal upon
rendering" but noooooo instead let's decorate like a looney using his
own faeces.


As such were one to try & bring this word created crap in unfiltered
then your XML files would grow with loads of completely superfluous
MsoNormal class attributes.



>    Word produces fine HTML with XML namespaces used to define additional
> attributes to support persistance of additional information not
> supported by HTML.

Ho hum. (A) Which Word? We're mostly on 2003 with other versions dotted
about. (B) I don't suppose you have a nice & simple way in which all
those copies of word can be set to save as std XHTML & nothing more?

Nice & clean XHTML. No silly MsoNormal decorating etc.


> Are you going to claim that XML namespaces and
> namespace qualified tags and attributes are wrong?

ROFLMAO Here comes the Spin. Divert onto another question & then start
asking vacuous questions about that area to move the debate away from the
area in question.

> Do you make the same
> claims about all applications of XML or just those you won't to wrongly
> disparage?
>

& yet further from the area in question. I am disappointed that you're
not asking about the origins of the moon.

Adam

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