"Bob Buckland ?:-\)" 75214.226(At Beautiful Downtown)compuserve.com
wrote in :

Hi Don,

Hmmm. Perhaps it wasn't stated clearly.

You can open HTML source and edit it directly in Word and
save it back as you would any other text file and Word won't
see it as an HTML file (i.e. it doesn't add 'bloat' to it).

If you open an HTML file into Word then edit it like any other
Word document then Word adds its markup when you save it back
out and choose HTML.

If folks are using Word only occassionaly to save in Web formats then
one of the tradeoffs for file size is going to be the amount of time
in learning new tools and in messaging the content (i.e. beyond just
'save as' from Word) where someone has already created a newsletter,
flyer or document in Word and then doesn't want to spend time do
anything other than let folks see it (looking as much like the Word
original as possible) in their browser, then file size is often not a
priority concern, certainly not with the size of some folks 'photo
albums' on line these days g

While the 'filtered' web page option in Word doesn't remove
'everything' it does remove a fair amount if the size of the text
portions of the Word file are important to the user.


=======
"Don" wrote in message
. 17.102...
NO!!!!
I'm very surprised at the 2nd paragraph response from Bob Buckland?
Perhaps Bob misundertstood you incorrect use of the term "meta data"
and interpreted it as meta tags?

The "meta data" that you refer to is IMPOSSIBLE to elimnate when
using
Word for ANY function related to html.
This "meta data" is commonly referred to as Word bloat.


Hello Bob,
Best of holidays to you and yours. Health and happiness for
2006.

Expecting "novices" to sift through the Word bloat in a text file format,
while attempting to conform to the non-addition of Word Syles is
stretching the imagination just a bit g
I'm sure you agree?

html can be difficult enough! Why add to the dilema.

Finding a professional or even somebody non-pro who deals with html on a
regular basis and expecting either of the aformentioned to have either
the patience or tolerance to sift through any of the non-valid or
deprecated data that Word adds to html is stretching the imagination even
further than the aforementioned stretch for "novices" BG

Although using Word might be acceptable for a minimum design of web a
page?
What stray-primose-path has that novice been led down when they decide
they need some real functionality and attempt to find ways of improving
the BAD Word html?
Don't answer!

They start from scratch with both tools and methods which acceptable and
useable. However most of all, html which somebody may assit them with
errors, and willingly.
Word html fails miserably on any of the above accounts.
I don't care how many options or filters you attempt to set in Word!
Bottom-line is you'll always end up with crap!

So please explain why myself, you or anybody should encourage folks to
waste their time using Word to create web pages?