[Notjohn]

>I'm assuming Sigil's problems this time around

I've always had my best results with software when I assume that the problems are MINE, rather than the software's.

In my limited experience with Word 2013, I thought it produced reasonably sleek html, at least compared to my installation of Word 2000. In the early days of e-publishing, I used to upload to Google Docs and (like you with View Source) get the html that way, which was a lot cleaner than Word's version. Now I use Word2CleanHtml dot com, which IMHO is infinitely better. There are also paid and free softwares and plug-ins that do the same thing. I stay well away from *.docx and will continue to do so until my editors start insisting on it (so far they are all perfectly happy with *.doc files).

I also stay away from embedded fonts. Rarely is it the case that an author's notion of how a book should look has any validity, and if the publisher indulges the author in the first instance, if the book stays around long enough, it will eventually (like all other things) revert to the mean, and that Comic Sans will wind up as Georgia or Bookman.