- From: P. T. Rourke <ptrourke@mediaone.net>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:17:38 -0500
- To: <www-amaya@w3.org>
> If they want to use XML because it is fashionable, they will continue > to use Microsoft Word, but, instead of saving in OLE structured files they > will save as "XHMTL", where that really means a mixture of XHTML XML and > proprietory XML, with the latter providing the Word semantics. > > I think you are confusing XML with particular applications of XML. Word > 2000 XHTML attempts to be valid XML (I haven't checked) but is still > proprietory. It is not well-formed. Example: <html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 9"> <meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 9"> <link rel=File-List href="./7221-380_files/filelist.xml"> <title>9 February 2001</title> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:DocumentProperties> <o:Author>Nobody</o:Author> And so on (body, div, and other elements have unquoted attribute values; too many for me to keep correcting and checking for well-formedness, let alone validate). Every paragraph element has an unquoted class attribute. There are also proprietary CSS extensions, like mso-bidi-font-size, etc. Perhaps Office XP will improve on this (though I doubt it). Patrick Rourke ptrourke@mediaone.net
Received on Monday, 19 March 2001 11:19:26 UTC