In message , dadiOH
writes:
[]
I can't comment on your other concerns as they aren't things I use, need or
want. I am sure there are more full featured word processors but simplicity
decreases with features.

"they aren't things I use, need, or want". This statement bears
examination. They aren't things you use, that's self-evident! They
aren't things you need - depends on your definition of need; you don't
_need_ a word processor, or even a computer. As to whether they're
things you _want_ - well, I suppose if you don't actually know about
them you can't want them; however, they might be things you'd want _if_
you actually saw them.

One thing I do like about it is the ability to save in htm. I have and can
use html editors but rarely use them as I don't have much need for them.
The web pages in my sig were made with Atlantis and IrfanView.

Is the HTML code it produces (a) standards-compliant (b) compact? I only
ask because I'm most unimpressed with what Word produces. Try the
following (change the {} to ):

{HTML}{HEAD}{/HEAD}
{BODY}
{FONT COLOR=RED}red}{/FONT}
{FONT COLOR=YELLOW}yellow{/FONT}
{/BODY}
{/HTML}

create that (e. g. in notepad), save it as colours.htm, load it into
Word, re-save it, look at the size, look at it in notepad ...

(I think Word's output might just be standards-compliant.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If your mind goes blank, remember to turn down the sound.