Converting Word files to HTML in Word Cleaner

[Al Moritz]

Hi all,

I was always told that the conversion of Word files to HTML as done by
Word itself sucks - you get a lot of unnecessary code that can
influence the design on web browsers other than Internet Explorer. Our
computer expert in my company had told me already a while ago that I
should learn HTML and encode myself. I was never inclined to do so (I
am no computer expert), and when upon his suggestion I looked how my
pages (converted to HTML in Word) appeared in Netscape, they looked
just fine.

Lately however, some pages of my website that looked correct in
Explorer got a screwed-up look in Netscape. Furthermore, when I
recently converted Word documents on my new Mac, uploaded them to the
web and looked at them on a PC, I was absolutely horrified. All kinds
of strange characters appeared, and I took the pages off as fast as I
had put them on.

This did it for me: I had to get some serious HTML code design going.
Still not inclined to learn HTML however (something you can criticize
me for, but not point of this topic), I did some search on the web,
and found the new program Word Cleaner:

http://www.wordcleaner.com/

They claim that it's so good blah blah and that it cleans up Word
files professionally blah blah, but instead of having to believe them
before you buy they offer a free 15 days trial version. I downloaded
it. I discovered that the program does convert Word/HTML files made on
a PC, but not those made on a Mac - what it does though is converting
Word.rtf files from both PC and Mac. And that conversion of rtf
documents is what I used (it also converts txt. files) - on my laptop
it takes 2 seconds for an 80 kb document to convert.

I was amazed. My HTML file sizes shrunk in half, and there was so
much less code! Moreover, the webpages created in Word Cleaner looked
identical to those created in Word on Explorer, and the few files
converted in Word that looked screwed up on Netscape now looked fine,
converted in Word Cleaner.

I showed this to our computer expert in my company, and he said this
really looks good - it actually looks like HTML design from a
professional web designer, he said. Hmmm, you can judge for yourself.
Go to my website:

http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/...senreviews.htm

and look at the HMTL source of any page except my main page.

(That one looks correct in both Explorer and Netscape but has a few
font problems in Safari - so I guess there is still some crappy code
hidden somewhere. That file was converted to Word.rtf from a Word.html
file, and from there converted to .html in Word Cleaner. All the other
files were never .html files before, only Word.rtf or Word.doc (and
from there rtf) files, before being converted to .html in Word
Cleaner).

See for yourself ("view - source" of the files), to judge what you
think of the HTML code as generated by Word Cleaner. For comparison
purposes, I also have uploaded the file "donnerstag2" which you can
view when you go to the link "Donnerstag aus Licht" and then insert a
"2" between "donnerstag" and ".htm" in the URL. "donnerstag2" is
identical to "donnerstag" but was converted to HTML in Word - look at
the gigantic file size (file - properties) and all the unnecessary,
crappy codes!

[West]

"Al Moritz" wrote in message >
[...]
Maybe Al's post was Spam, maybe not?!

$99 --- waaaay too expensive!

Its a very simple and quick task to convert MSWord files to HTML without
MSWord bloated code. If you use a wysiwyg html editor here's one method --

1. Copy and Paste the content from a word document into your Outlook Express
(or other email client)
2. Format as plain text, then Copy and Paste your plain text content into
your wysiwyg FPage, Namo or 'whatever' editor.

Maybe there are other tried and trusted simple methods to rip that word
bloat, without having to spend ?!

:-)

--
W

[Blinky the Shark]

Peacenik wrote:

"Al Moritz" <am*****@cellsignal.com> wrote in message
news:bf**************************@posting.google.c om...

This did it for me: I had to get some serious HTML code design going.
Still not inclined to learn HTML however (something you can criticize
me for, but not point of this topic), I did some search on the web,
and found the new program Word Cleaner:

...and at this point, the red flag goes up, saying, "SPAM! SPAM! SPAM!"

Not only crossposted, but multi-crossposted: there's at least one
other copy crossposted to a bunch of MS groups.

--
Blinky Linux RU 297263
Spam: The Boulder Pledge http://snurl.com/bpledge
Digest: Best of Internet Oracularities http://snurl.com/dig_oracle

[Al Moritz]

"Peacenik" <cr*******@insightBBB.ReplaceBBBwithBBandPutDotCom AfterItcom> wrote in message news:<sq*******************@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att. net>...

This did it for me: I had to get some serious HTML code design going.
Still not inclined to learn HTML however (something you can criticize
me for, but not point of this topic), I did some search on the web,
and found the new program Word Cleaner:

...and at this point, the red flag goes up, saying, "SPAM! SPAM! SPAM!"

And West says:
Maybe Al's post was Spam, maybe not?!

Haha, that's what you get when you're enthusiastic about something:-)
Oh well, enthusiasm has no place anymore in this cynical world I guess
<g>
I thought my:

They claim that it's so good blah blah and that it cleans up Word
files professionally blah blah,...

would be a clear signature that this is was no spam. Or have you ever
seen self-deprecating spam? Me, never. Only TV commercials are
sometimes self-deprecating, and then only in some rare cases and when
the product is already super-established.

Anyway, I haven't spent any money on the program yet (I still have a
few days left on my trial version), but I will. It's just too
convenient.

Oh well, I waste my money, you waste your time!

No, of course you don't, if you're proficient in HTML (I'm not). But
even if you're proficient, I could imagine that the program might save
you some time – converting in 2 seconds and then some amendments by
hand, if necessary. That might still be faster than doing it by hand
from scratch for every page – even with a fixed template at hand.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe not.

I would appreciate in any case, if you could give me feedback on the
HTML code (again, not my main page, but any other page on my site).
Does it look good to you?

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <xP***********************@news3.calgary.shaw.ca >, Andrew
Fedoniouk <an****@terra-informatica.org> writes

Andrew. Author of the BlockNote.

I can't see anything on your pages, that says BlockNote produces valid
HTML.

I did see this, though:

<http://blocknote.net/features.html>

Tables are essential in shaping and defining the layout of HTML
documents.

and your own pages are not only invalid, but mix CSS and non-CSS
presentational markup.

The same applies to your parent home page:

<http://terra-informatica.org>

which is clearly produced by BlockNote, and includes these gems:

<TD nowrap bgcolor=#ffccff valign=middle align=center><FONT
size=3> &nbsp;</FONT><A href="c-smile/index.htm"><FONT size=4
color=#a0522d>C-SMILE</A></FONT></U></TD>
TD nowrap bgcolor=#ffcc66 valign=middle align=center><FONT
size=3> </FONT>micro<FONT size=3> </FONT><A
href="utils/index.htm"><FONT size=4
color=#a0522d>SMILES</A></FONT></U></TD>

<DIV align=center>&nbsp;</DIV>
(FU set)
--
Andy Mabbett
USA imprisons children without trial, at Guantanamo Bay:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2970279.stm>
<http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510582003?open&of=ENG-USA>

[Nico Schuyt]

Andy Mabbett wrote:

Andrew Fedoniouk wrote

Andrew. Author of the BlockNote.

I can't see anything on your pages, that says BlockNote produces valid
HTML.

Compare an editor with a photo camera. You can make ugly pictures with a
Nikon of $5000 (or an award winning one with a camera of $20) :-)
I even create valid HTML/CSS with FrontPage

Nico

[Nico Schuyt]

Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:

http://blocknote.net
Andrew. Author of the BlockNote.
http://terra-informatica.org

Nice editor!
Don't have time to do a complete test, so a few questions:
- Can I include a doc type?
- Is it possible to apply CSS tags from the linked stylesheet?
- Am I right that the built in validator is limited? (no warning for missing
alt tag for example)
Regards,
Nico

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <3f***********************@news.euronet.nl>, Nico Schuyt
<ns*****@hotmail.com> writes

Andrew. Author of the BlockNote.

I can't see anything on your pages, that says BlockNote produces valid
HTML.

Compare an editor with a photo camera. You can make ugly pictures with
a Nikon of $5000 (or an award winning one with a camera of $20) :-) I
even create valid HTML/CSS with FrontPage

Why buy a dog, then bark yourself?
--
Andy Mabbett
USA imprisons children without trial, at Guantanamo Bay:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2970279.stm>
<http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510582003?open&of=ENG-USA>

[Andrew Fedoniouk]

Thank Andy for your response!

IMHO!

Andy Mabbett > I can't see anything on your pages, that says BlockNote
produces valid HTML.

Aha! Valid HTML?! Each browser has its own understanding of validity....
More over, valid HTML is sort of fuzzy set for one given browser. The same
formatting element could work in one place and couldn't in another.
Superposition of such fuzzy sets gives us the Valid HTML Cloud.

The art of web design is to walk inside the cloud and stop if densitiy of
the cloud substance become low. (C) My :)

In BlockNote I've tried to outline 100% valid HTML border and use it.

And more about "validity":

There are three statements taken from standards (not exactly - just an
idea):

1. Client browser MUST understand IMG tags without ALT attribute.
2. All images SHOULD have ALT attribute.
3. All of us MUST as much as they can to reduce pollution (this implies
reduce bandwidth as much as you can).

Conflicting statements, huh?

I did see this, though:

<http://blocknote.net/features.html>

Tables are essential in shaping and defining the layout of HTML
documents.

and your own pages are not only invalid, but mix CSS and non-CSS
presentational markup.

The same applies to your parent home page:

<http://terra-informatica.org>

Beg my pardon! I am not a Web Designer. I just wanted things done.
It is not democratic at all to create such damned complex sandwich from
SGML/HTML/XML, CSS and JavaScript and ask everybody to follow the rules.
I just don't have enough time to follow on these "should have"s.

It is an Internet - common place and I MUST have an opportunity to expose
myself by myself.
And I am not a full dummy there. Trust me. (At least I have master degree in
rocket science. Literally :)

Instead you will ask me to pay you my money and we will build for you nice,
clean (inside) HTML?
Otherwise you'll be "not valid"? This way? Thanks. Next time and on the
different globe.

I am trying to build a tool not for Professional Web Designers (my respect
them, honestly) but for the rest of us.
Democratic and simple. Yep, it costs something. The price of democracy?

DIXI.

And one more thought. HTML standard must be redesigned completely from
scratch. Now it is a cesspit with remains of SGML, CSS scales, OBJECTs,
EMBEDEDs, frames... You can select any part of it and find that it is not
complete or even conflicts with other parts. And XHTML seems like brand new
cerement for it.

IMHO!
which is clearly produced by BlockNote, and includes these gems:

<TD nowrap bgcolor=#ffccff valign=middle align=center><FONT
size=3> &nbsp;</FONT><A href="c-smile/index.htm"><FONT size=4
color=#a0522d>C-SMILE</A></FONT></U></TD>
TD nowrap bgcolor=#ffcc66 valign=middle align=center><FONT
size=3> </FONT>micro<FONT size=3> </FONT><A
href="utils/index.htm"><FONT size=4
color=#a0522d>SMILES</A></FONT></U></TD>
<DIV align=center>&nbsp;</DIV>

Yep! These are good ones. I appreciate you a lot! Will be fixed ASAP!
I know, BlockNote is good but not perfect :)

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://blocknote.net

[Nick Kew]

In article <%7***********************@news1.calgary.shaw.ca >, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of "Andrew Fedoniouk" <an****@terra-informatica.org> wrote:

(a whole bunch of clueless drivel)

Well, thanks for the insight into why one alleged authoring tool has no idea
about HTML. Not that it comes as any surprise.

--
Nick Kew

In urgent need of paying work - see http://www.webthing.com/~nick/cv.html

[Nico Schuyt]

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

Nico Schuyt wrote: I even create valid HTML/CSS with FrontPage

Can you explain how you do that? :-)
Since FrontPage AFAIK doesn't add a <!DOCTYPE declaration at all for
example? And sometimes removes the doctype, even if you've put it
there yourself? And uses tons of non-CSS to 'make up' rather than
mark up a page, which gets all mixed up with your CSS?
Use it like you should:
- Create a valid template and a good stylesheet.
- Copy the template for every new page.
- Don't use HTML markup where you can use the markup out of the stylesheet
FP has a reasonable integration with the stylesheet. Mark a piece of text
(in wysiwyg) and apply (or remove) the required style.
It doesn't change HTML if settings are correct.
Or do you mean you create valid HTML/CSS with FrontPage, using the
'html'-view to clean up what FP just created for you?
Partially, yes. Some of the editing I do in html-view, some in wysiwyg.
WYSIWYG
- Make designs. Just for the look, not for the coding.
- Text editing and applying styles
- Importing text
- Changing text into links
- Creating blank tables and add or remove rows.
- Insert a picture, see if it fits, resize it if necessary and change the
size in a graphic editor and refresh in FP to get the proper width and
height.

HTML-view:
- Add or change doctype
- Create inline or internal style (Though I avoid those styles and those
styles can be created with FP too)

GENERAL
- Handy tools for testing on broken links, file management etc.
- The wysiwyg-view corresponds to the result in IE (and in most cases to
Mozilla)

If so, IMO it's not realy FP that creates the HTML/CSS. How is that any different
from using, lets say, NotePad?
See above.
So, perfect editor?
No:
- Even when used carefully it adds pieces of code I don't want.
- No good editor for external stylesheets (But I prefer to do it by hand
anyway instead of TopStyle for example)
- Very limited validator. (But AFAIK there is no good one for local use)
- Not able to parse PHP locally in preview
Didn't find a better editor so far however.
Or do you mean "it validates, so it's good"? Never mind that it's
about 30k too big.

Results are reasonable:
www.cartal.nl
www.michellippens.nl
www.leaseleed.nl
etc

Regards,
Nico

[Ben M]

>>> I MUST have an opportunity to expose myself by myself.

Possibly, but not in front of the children.

:))

Thanks!
Beg my pardon for my English. It is not my favorite one :))

And I am not a full dummy there. Trust me. (At least I have master
degree

in
rocket science. Literally :)

So. It's official. HTML *isn't* rocket science.

:)) "HTML *isn't* a science" better.

HTML is a formally specified markup language with clearly defined semantics.
I would say that HTML is the result of scientific thought.

The roots of formally specified languages can be traced back to scientific
underpinnings. The fact that your earlier posts imply a lack of knowledge
concerning what validity in a HTML document actually means, this shows in a
lack of understanding of the underlying formal nature of HTML and XHTML.

The fact that scientific thought has gone into the creation of HTML is
undoubted (thanks TBL at CERN). In fact the formal nature of HTML and its
SGML underpinnings means that it is possible to state with certainty that a
document that claims to be a HTML document is in fact part of the set of
valid HTML documents (there may be some caveats to this with very early
versions of HTML).

There are of course differences between the various HTML versions, for
example a valid HTML 3.2 document may not be a valid HTML 4.01 document
(assuming we change the DTD) due to a missing alt attribute, like you
mentioned earlier in the thread. However the formal basis of HTML means that
such differences between specifications can be easily understood.

Such inconsistencies between specifications are formally noted and your
earlier rant about HTML being inconsistent is fairly pointless. HTML 2 is
not HTML 3 is not HTML 4. Inconsistencies internal to a specification are of
course problems (which is why there are errata documents), however you did
not point any of them out, just inconsistencies between different
specifications.

follow ups set to comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
--
BenM
http://www.benmeadowcroft.com/

[Barbara de Zoete]

Nico Schuyt wrote:

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

Nico Schuyt wrote: I even create valid HTML/CSS with FrontPage

Can you explain how you do that? :-)
Since FrontPage AFAIK doesn't add a <!DOCTYPE declaration at all for
example? And sometimes removes the doctype, even if you've put it
there yourself? And uses tons of non-CSS to 'make up' rather than
mark up a page, which gets all mixed up with your CSS?

Use it like you should:
- Create a valid template and a good stylesheet.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And where or how do you do that? Within FP or with some other program?

<snip>
GENERAL
- Handy tools for testing on broken links, file management etc.
This I agree with. This is about the only part of FP I *do* use. But as you
put it yourself, this makes FP a handy tool for me. Nothing more. Not the
WYSIWYG web-edit and -design program it is said to be.
- The wysiwyg-view corresponds to the result in IE (and in most cases
to Mozilla)

I'm not very advanced in html and or CSS, but so far I find that writing my
source by hand is by far the fastest way of creating pages that work in
various browsers. Espescially the lack of the possibility in FP to work on
your stylesheet and the html-source at the same time (and on top of that
have two or more browsers running to show immitiate results), makes me move
away from FP further and further.

<snip>

But for a fast 'setup' of a site, quick 'preview' of a general lay-out or
design, it does work. So occationally I too fall back on FP.
--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/index.html - NL

[picayunish]

When Nico Schuyt was making a web page, a :-? appears and wrote:

But, again, FP is not perfect but I didn't find a better alternative.

What about DW as an alternative.
--
Edwin van der Vaart (Geen familie van....)
http://www.semi-conductors.nl/ PHP Redirect to semi-conductor.nl
http://www.semi-conductor.nl/ Links to Semiconductors sites
http://members.chello.nl/e.vandervaart/ Experimental site
http://host.deluxnetwork.com/~evdvaart/ Personal site

[Nico Schuyt]

picayunish wrote:

Nico Schuyt wrote:

But, again, FP is not perfect but I didn't find a better alternative.

What about DW as an alternative.

Price too high :-)
Already some progress in the Jeannie-site?
Nico

[Eric Jarvis]

picayunish wrote:

When Nico Schuyt was making a web page, a :-? appears and wrote:

But, again, FP is not perfect but I didn't find a better alternative.

What about DW as an alternative.

still suffers from most of the most basic faults of
FP...doesn't output quite such a mess and has better site
management tools...but I still don't understand its
popularity given the cost and the superior/equal
cheap/free alternatives

better than using FP...but then so is skiing naked down
Mount Everest in December

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"Hey Lord don't ask me questions
There ain't no answer in me"

[picayunish]

When Nico Schuyt was making a web page, a :-? appears and wrote:

picayunish wrote:

Nico Schuyt wrote:

But, again, FP is not perfect but I didn't find a better alternative.

What about DW as an alternative.

Price too high :-)

I got a unlimited demo version of DW and FW :-D
But I don't use it any more.

Now a day I use Davor's PHP editor http://www.pleskina.com/dphped/. It have
a Graphic User Interface (x-window).
You can say, it's a advanced notepad that highlight some JS and PHP
functions. If you using the wrong HTML end tags, it highlight the end tag.
Already some progress in the Jeannie-site?

No progress with the Jannie-site. The site is frozen, because she cann't
decide what she likes or not.
So I started to make my personal site.
--
Edwin van der Vaart (Geen familie van....)
http://www.semi-conductors.nl/ PHP Redirect to semi-conductor.nl
http://www.semi-conductor.nl/ Links to Semiconductors sites
http://members.chello.nl/e.vandervaart/ Experimental site
http://host.deluxnetwork.com/~evdvaart/ Personal site

[Barbara de Zoete]

>Nico Schuyt wrote:

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

Nico Schuyt wrote: Use it like you should:
- Create a valid template and a good stylesheet. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And where or how do you do that? Within FP or with some other
program?
Partially in HTMLview in FP, partially by creating an internal
stylesheet
in wisiwyg in FP, partially by hand.

So you must know FP well by now. Maybe I just didn't spend enough time with
FP. I didn't want to learn a program. I wanted to learn how to build pages
for the web.
I'm not very advanced in html and or CSS, but so far I find that
writing my source by hand is by far the fastest way of creating pages
that work in various browsers.

Well, if you do it all by hand you *are* advanced :-)

:-) No, really, I'm a beginner. I've had a homepage about twelve year ago.
Public for about three years. Then I lost interest. Sinca a couple of weeks,
about a month now I've restarted. I found that so many things have changed.
Like the good habit of separating content and style. I like it. But it took
a lot of reading and experimenting to get the basics working for me.
Still running in to troubles now and then, like floating divs left and right
and make them show up good in NS (they do in IE and OP). Difficult. Probably
easy for most of the people here. But not (yet) for me.

Espescially the lack of the
possibility in FP to work on your stylesheet and the html-source at
the same time

I have all kinds of pages open at the same time (html, wysiwyg AND the
stylesheet)

Maybe it's just the screen lay-out I'm not used to. Toolbars taking up
valuable screenspace, things like that. I just don't like working in FP all
the time.

(and on top of that have two or more browsers running
to show immitiate results), .....

The wysiwyg of FP is a lot faster. You don't even have to save the
file to see directly the results.
When the template is ready and tested, you hardly need other browers.

Well now. Here we apparantly disagree. I've noticed big time troubles when
source works in IE and is not tested in other browsers. Like the example
with the left and right floating divs, not working specifically in NS. And
than I'm not even talking about 'older' browsers.

But for a fast 'setup' of a site, quick 'preview' of a general
lay-out or design, it does work. So occationally I too fall back on
FP.

Ehh, is that a confession?:-)

;-) Hush. Don't spread the word.
It is like using FP as my sketchbook and then, when I like the draft, write
my source by hand so that it matches the sketch, but is a lot cleaner,
faster and gets better support from various browsers.
But, again, FP is not perfect but I didn't find a better alternative.

I think, AFAIK, there is none. Not affordable anyway.

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/index.html - NL

[Nico Schuyt]

Terry Kimpling wrote:

"Barbara de Zoete

Nico Schuyt wrote:

But, again, FP is not perfect but I didn't find a better
alternative.

I think, AFAIK, there is none. Not affordable anyway. www.chami.com has a HTML-Kit that is both better and cheaper (free)
than FP. It even previews in IE or Netscape.

I wonder whether the coding of a page like
http://www.chami.com/html-kit/features/ is the result of using HTML-Kit :0

First (but perhaps I should spend more time in it) impression is that
HTML-Kit is:
- very slow in start up
- loaded with functions I'l never use (Like "Go to head tag").
- applying tags from a linked stylesheet is not so obvious
- difficult to survey when a number of files are open.
- When I type a couple of lines like
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
and select "Format selected text as unordered list, I get
<ul>
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
</ul>
- very limited use of right mouse
.....

[Andrew Fedoniouk]

> The fact that scientific thought has gone into the creation of HTML is

undoubted (thanks TBL at CERN). In fact the formal nature of HTML and its
SGML underpinnings means that it is possible to state with certainty that a document that claims to be a HTML document is in fact part of the set of
valid HTML documents (there may be some caveats to this with very early
versions of HTML).

:)) (With the full respect to the author)

Do you know what guys were/are doing at CERN? Quantum physics and
implications.
Remember? "It is impossible to determine electron position at the given time
just its' probability" (cloud!), "Wave and particle at the same time",
etc...

And these guys produced following "hspace .... By default HSPACE is a small
non-zero number." And what do you expect?

Just kidding, don't take it seriously. My deep respect them also. They did
right thing at that time.

I beleive that problem which we just started to discover:
semantical, logical conflict between
"document (primarily text) as endless paper tape" (pure, native HTML model)
-and-
"web site as a software application" - informational console, form, frame,
interactive widgets - all attributes of GUI of software application.

I beleive that 80% percents of sites in the Internet are sort of such
applications or storefronts for something.
And all these guys are trying to fit their stuff in this Procrustean bed of
long, long piece of paper.
Just take a look on these holy wars around 640*800*1024 screen width.

Java failed to be a "lingua franca" for Internet GUI. Why? It is a different
story for different branch.

XUL+JavaScript - Mozilla - are dying under the pressure of 30 megaton
installation and proportional speed of execution.
And what do you expect? It must implement the full complex system of
standards. See, just parsers and tranlators for: HTML, XML, DTD, CSS,
JavaScript and all XML sublangs.

As a result: how many browsers do we have? Three. Are they even close to
"thin client"? Keep dreaming.
Are they working in the same way? No! Why? Because of bad, too complex,
non-deterministic standards.
They bad primarily not because of somebody created "small non-zero number"
definition.
No questions here - they are valid from logical, formal point of view (v.
4.01)

They just describe not proper entities. And trying and trying. Neverending
story... XHTML (finally! at least one parser less, at least 3 still awaiting
to be removed).

And the last. Who can manage to create real valid standard conformable
browser? Only big brothers. The answer?

Beg my pardon for my English. It just subset of C++.

Andrew.
http://terra-informatica.org

[Richard Laing]

Jacqui or (maybe) Pete <po****@spamcop.net> wrote in message

...and at this point, the red flag goes up, saying, "SPAM! SPAM! SPAM!"

Looks that way, but in fact if you research the poster (newsgroup
postings & homepage) it turns out to be legitimage enthusiasm.

I can vouch for Al Moritz. He's (by now) a well-known reviewer of
Stockhausen's music. Am sure he wasn't trying to sell you anything...!

Richard Laing