[Sigia-l] Word HTML - money were my mouth is (was WhenShoulda Manual be Web-based?)

[Thomas Vander Wal]

Boniface Lau wrote:

>>From: sigia-l-admin at asis.org [mailto:sigia-l-admin at asis.org]On
>>Behalf Of Thomas Vander Wal
>> 
>>    
>>
>>>The issue was NOT on whether Word produced a "good" web page or
>>>(X)HTML.
>>>
>>>The issue was whether Word produced a web page without HTML error.
>>>      
>>>
>>I should have expected the classic Boniface response, which is to
>>cut out the section of the e-mail with the answer to your question
>>then act like the question was not answered.
>>    
>>
>
>Care to cite facts and logic to back up your above accusation? Or are
>you used to making unsubstantiated accusations?
>  
>
Look at most of your response on the board, I do not say this in a crewl 
manner, but I find it humorous.  It is a different approach.

>>The answer that you cut out is...
>>
>>Word generated Web pages do not come close to validating to any
>>(X)HTML DTD.  
>>    
>>
>
>I'd already said that when I pointed out that the Word-produced HTML
>does not include DTD.
>  
>
Even if you use a DTD and fix all the problems in the HTML head Word 
will not validate.  The validation goes much farther than the DTD.  With 
HTML structure and semantic (use of the proper tags in markup is very 
important to good HTML) are extremely important.  Word not only does not 
translate this structure well, it does not permit this structuring. 
 Word is a visual style content tool, not a structural content tool and 
HTML requires information structure to be good.  

>>I know quite a few folks that believe if that what Word generates is
>>not (X)HTML because of this.
>>    
>>
>
>So? The fact that some people held a certain belief does not mean it
>is valid.
>
>  
>
See the above for more support  -- again you cut out the supporting 
information

Take care.

All the best,
Thomas