Posted by JohnWMpls on 10/16/93 11:17

On Mon, 30 May 2005 10:18:54 +1000, dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

=>> From: dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au>
=>
=>>> From: JohnWMpls <johnwfa@mn.rr.com>
=>>
=>>> A year or so ago I started using MS Word 2003 to read .doc files people
=>>> sent me - to save as HTML for posting. Files sizes ballooned - full of
=>>> css stuff. I went back to using MS Word 98 for this - nice clean HTML
=>>> code. {g}
=>>
=>>
=>> There are one or two docs for which I have used MS Word 98 to get a rough
=>> HTML layout for and it is a mess. But a *much better mess* to clean up than
=>> with later MS Words... So, I sort of agree with you, seriously.
=>
=>
=>I should add, I suppose, that I agree with comments by others (now that I
=>have read them) that css is not at fault so much as the crazy use of it in
=>later MS Word. To tell the truth, 98 is better because one can then css
=>style the "cleaner" html that you see in a more rational manner.
=>
=>dorayme

Interesting - not CSS but Word. It's maybe really Microsoft. What
triggered my comment was a conversion I did from MS's Publisher to HTML -
and if you think Word 2003 was bad,....! {g}

But MS is maybe not alone. Mozilla's new Composer provides the option for
code in css or HTML and it is defaulted to css.

I think css is great. I maintain a few sites with a couple hundred pages
each and just one simple 12-15 line .css file per site sure saves a lot of
coding on all the pages.

I'm an old guy and I'm guessing that some newer people think css is the
only way - regardless of how complicated it can make things.

JohnW-Mpls

[Back to original message]