|
|
Posted by Andy Dingley on 04/19/07 16:31
On 13 Apr, 16:43, "Albert Wiersch" <donotre...@123donotreply123.com>
wrote:
> "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp...@cs.tut.fi> wrote in messagenews:yTvTh.35223$ve1.26510@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> > Unfortunately, he used a product that is dishonestly sold as a validator
> > but isn't, the infamous "CSE HTML Validator". His confusion is
> > understandable; the phoney validator's business isn't.
>
> It's only "phony" if you strictly limit your definition...
So Albert, your snake oil "validator" is perfect and the OP didn't
really have a problem?
What was it - evil Finnish Pixies?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|