Posted by Chaddy2222 on 07/26/07 14:26

On Jul 26, 11:12 am, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m...@example.invalid> wrote:
> Nick Marks wrote:
> > I think you are getting it wrong...
>
> You think /who/ are getting it wrong? You must be new here. Normally,
> we quote the relevant part of the post we are replying to, as I am doing
> here. Oh, you don't think this is *Google* do you?
>
> > if you want to include it onto a HTML page then you will have to do it
> > manually ...
>
> There's another way?
>
> > Include will not work on HTML pages.. Alternatively you can use frames
> > or IFrames
>
> Yes, you /are/ new here. Google for "frames are evil"
>
> > For more help Email me
> > hxxp://www.design2host.net
>
> No thanks. Not if that is your best work. <lol>
> <http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.design2h...>
> <http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css2&warning=2&u...>
>
Ha, you reckon that's bad, I know of a bloke, well I presume it's a
bloke who keeps telling us (people who are new-ish to CSS to back to
HTML 3.2 as he / she / it thiks it (3.2) gives you more control then
what you get with CSS. But I thaught at the time it was the most
rediculous thing I had read. Oh and I stil do think that way about
HTML 3.2, I mean how can people still pay $50 per hour for old code
that will not work (as well) or at all on modern web browsers.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

[Back to original message]