| 
 Posted by Albert Wiersch on 06/17/46 11:24 
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message  
news:Xns96B6ED74798D1jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31... 
> "Albert Wiersch" <mrinternetnewsREMOVEUPPERCASETOREPLY@wiersch.com> 
> wrote: 
> 
> You never answered why you keep calling a non-validator a validator,  
> except 
> by admitting that it is not "technically" (i.e., in reality) a validator. 
 
I've answered it many times. This is an example of why I'm not going to  
continue to talk about it - it goes no where. See my previous messages for  
why it is called a validator. Look up the word validate in the dictionary  
(note that there is more than one definition). 
 
--  
Albert Wiersch 
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
 
  
Navigation:
[Reply to this message] 
 |