Re: Why are MSNBC web pages garbled on my system?
Claire Tucker <fake@invalid.c om> wrote in message news:<r5vge0hcc 7vfi1nt8n8eerqn u3cited10u@4ax. com>...
[color=blue]
> As I recall, the HTML generated by Word is really XHTML with an
> Office-specific XML namespace referenced alongside.[/color]
Which version of Word ? There are _big_ differences between them.
Word's use of HTML is bizarre, because of a design decision they made
early on. It was seen as important that users could save Word as HTML,
then re-load it into Word and re-generate an exactly equivalent Word
document - so-called "round-tripping". This is a worthy aim for
word-processor designers, but the question is whether it's _relevant_
to HTML authoring for the web.
Word is an awful HTML editor - because it's not even _trying_ to be
one (as a web tool).
Old Word versions make output that is nasty as an SGML document, let
alone HTML. Their bizarre mis-use of SGML comments as processing
directives is perhaps the most blatant.
Later Word versions move to a more well-formed XML approach, and as
you say they involved namespaces. These are much easier to work with -
they're still aberrant (X)HTML, but at least some trivial stripping of
the namespaced elements can make them resemble the real stuff.
Non of Word's output, in any version, is fit for use as "web grade"
HTML. None of it can be turned into "web-HTML" without more work than
would be saved by using a better authoring tool in the first place.
Claire Tucker <fake@invalid.c om> wrote in message news:<r5vge0hcc 7vfi1nt8n8eerqn u3cited10u@4ax. com>...
[color=blue]
> As I recall, the HTML generated by Word is really XHTML with an
> Office-specific XML namespace referenced alongside.[/color]
Which version of Word ? There are _big_ differences between them.
Word's use of HTML is bizarre, because of a design decision they made
early on. It was seen as important that users could save Word as HTML,
then re-load it into Word and re-generate an exactly equivalent Word
document - so-called "round-tripping". This is a worthy aim for
word-processor designers, but the question is whether it's _relevant_
to HTML authoring for the web.
Word is an awful HTML editor - because it's not even _trying_ to be
one (as a web tool).
Old Word versions make output that is nasty as an SGML document, let
alone HTML. Their bizarre mis-use of SGML comments as processing
directives is perhaps the most blatant.
Later Word versions move to a more well-formed XML approach, and as
you say they involved namespaces. These are much easier to work with -
they're still aberrant (X)HTML, but at least some trivial stripping of
the namespaced elements can make them resemble the real stuff.
Non of Word's output, in any version, is fit for use as "web grade"
HTML. None of it can be turned into "web-HTML" without more work than
would be saved by using a better authoring tool in the first place.
Comment