«

Ed Mullen wrote:
> Gualtier Malde wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> On Feb 23, 4:15 pm, Gualtier Malde <valac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Peter.Potamus.the.Purple.Hi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 22, 8:29 pm, Gualtier Malde <valac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
/snip/
>
> 1. You never said that you don't have Word. That would have been
> helpful to know in order to give you meaningful advice.
>
> 2. I doubt that Open Office's Save As HTML function produces much better
> HTML code than Word does but I'm willing to hear from OO experts who
> differ.
>
> 3. Next time try to give a better and more complete description of your
> environment, goals, tools, etc. It'll save us all a lot of time.
>
> Sheesh.
>

I know I'm late on this, but OO.o's html function is considerably better
then Word's. I wouldn't call it great, but it is serviceable.

Lee

Gualtier Malde wrote:
> wrote:
>> On Feb 24, 11:01 am, Gualtier Malde <valac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Peter.Potamus.the.Purple.Hi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 24, 10:07 am, Gualtier Malde <valac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Ed Mullen wrote:
>>>> Just to let you know, but you may not be getting a reply from Ed
>>>> anymore. Someone, from another newsgroup, ****ed him off big time,
>>>> and Ed informed everyone that he's going to unsubscribe from all
>>>> Mozilla newsgroups. I don't know if it includes this one, though.
>>> I've re-read my reply and can't imagine that it was insulting or even
>>> confrontational enough to be
>>> the cause. I even overlooked his "Sheesh". It certainly doesn't
>>> seem to fit the definition of a
>>> "flame".
>>
>>
>> I said "another newsgroup." It wasn't this one and it wasn't you.
>> I'm just replying so you'll know why Ed isn't replying.
>>
> Sorry. I took "this one" to mean "this post". Now, where did I put
> that anti-paranoia medication the doctor gave me?
>

It's not you, nor this Usenet group. It, in my case, only applies to
Mozilla groups on their server. I'm still here in this group. Mozilla
can choose to run their private news server anyway they want to. I
respect that. It's simply that, in my opinion, the newly rigorous
monitoring of it and cancellation of posts because they might be "off
topic" takes much of the fun out of the experience. Hence, I no longer
subscribe to any news.mozilla.org groups. It still is a valuable
resource and I don't advocate anyone abandoning that venue and its
useful information. It is simply my reaction to the current situation.
YMMV.

BTW, the reason I've been absent for a bit here is simply a result of my
being on the road for a week and too busy to check in here. That's all.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
In love the paradox occurs that two beings become one and yet remain
two. - Erich Fromm

Leonidas Jones wrote:
> Ed Mullen wrote:
>> Gualtier Malde wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 23, 4:15 pm, Gualtier Malde <valac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Peter.Potamus.the.Purple.Hi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 22, 8:29 pm, Gualtier Malde <valac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> /snip/
>>
>> 1. You never said that you don't have Word. That would have been
>> helpful to know in order to give you meaningful advice.
>>
>> 2. I doubt that Open Office's Save As HTML function produces much
>> better HTML code than Word does but I'm willing to hear from OO
>> experts who differ.
>>
>> 3. Next time try to give a better and more complete description of
>> your environment, goals, tools, etc. It'll save us all a lot of time.
>>
>> Sheesh.
>>
>
> I know I'm late on this, but OO.o's html function is considerably better
> then Word's. I wouldn't call it great, but it is serviceable.
>
> Lee

Good to know, Lee. Hopefully, it at least inserts a valid doctype when
it creates the HTML document.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Why are they called apartments, when they're all stuck together?

On Mar 4, 3:37 pm, Ed Mullen <e...@edmullen.net> wrote:
> Gualtier Malde wrote:
> > Peter.Potamus.the.Purple.Hi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Feb 24, 11:01 am, Gualtier Malde <valac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Peter.Potamus.the.Purple.Hi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 24, 10:07 am, Gualtier Malde <valac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Ed Mullen wrote:
> >>>> Just to let you know, but you may not be getting a reply from Ed
> >>>> anymore. Someone, from another newsgroup, ****ed him off big time,
> >>>> and Ed informed everyone that he's going to unsubscribe from all
> >>>> Mozilla newsgroups. I don't know if it includes this one, though.
> >>> I've re-read my reply and can't imagine that it was insulting or even
> >>> confrontational enough to be
> >>> the cause. I even overlooked his "Sheesh". It certainly doesn't
> >>> seem to fit the definition of a
> >>> "flame".
>
> >> I said "another newsgroup." It wasn't this one and it wasn't you.
> >> I'm just replying so you'll know why Ed isn't replying.
>
> > Sorry. I took "this one" to mean "this post". Now, where did I put
> > that anti-paranoia medication the doctor gave me?
>
> It's not you, nor this Usenet group. It, in my case, only applies to
> Mozilla groups on their server. I'm still here in this group. Mozilla
> can choose to run their private news server anyway they want to. I
> respect that. It's simply that, in my opinion, the newly rigorous
> monitoring of it and cancellation of posts because they might be "off
> topic" takes much of the fun out of the experience. Hence, I no longer
> subscribe to any news.mozilla.org groups. It still is a valuable
> resource and I don't advocate anyone abandoning that venue and its
> useful information. It is simply my reaction to the current situation.
> YMMV.
>
> BTW, the reason I've been absent for a bit here is simply a result of my
> being on the road for a week and too busy to check in here. That's all.
>

In that message, I thought you said you were leaving ALL Mozilla
groups, so I thought you meant this one, too.

Ed Mullen wrote:
> Leonidas Jones wrote:
>> Ed Mullen wrote:
>>> Gualtier Malde wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 23, 4:15 pm, Gualtier Malde <valac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Peter.Potamus.the.Purple.Hi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 8:29 pm, Gualtier Malde <valac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> /snip/
>>>
>>> 1. You never said that you don't have Word. That would have been
>>> helpful to know in order to give you meaningful advice.
>>>
>>> 2. I doubt that Open Office's Save As HTML function produces much
>>> better HTML code than Word does but I'm willing to hear from OO
>>> experts who differ.
>>>
>>> 3. Next time try to give a better and more complete description of
>>> your environment, goals, tools, etc. It'll save us all a lot of time.
>>>
>>> Sheesh.
>>>
>>
>> I know I'm late on this, but OO.o's html function is considerably
>> better then Word's. I wouldn't call it great, but it is serviceable.
>>
>> Lee
>
> Good to know, Lee. Hopefully, it at least inserts a valid doctype when
> it creates the HTML document.
>

It inserts the following:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

As I say, it is certainly not the html editor of choice, but if one
needs to make a quick web page out of a word processing document, its
got Word beat hands down. The price is right too!

Lee