|
|
Posted by dorayme on 12/23/07 21:30
In article
<068812fa-291b-44be-839d-119415b5cc1a@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
>,
jodleren <sonnich@hot.ee> wrote:
> On 23 Dec., 00:53, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > In article
> > <26aff379-bb0a-4515-b0c0-fd40bf193...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.co
> > m>,
> > jodleren <sonn...@hot.ee> wrote:
>
> > Recheck your mark up here.
> >
> > Is this the markup you want to know something about:
>
> I tested it on validator.w3.org and it found 54 errors.
> Some of them were my typos above etc and other simple stuff caused by
> my tiredness yesterday. And it is ok on.
>
> Still, I get some 26 errors mostly by nested tables... other pages
> give none. I cannot see why they are different, as they are all based
> on the same system and headers... but sometimes it claims that </td>
> not allowed here and <tr height=... is not allowed, sometimes it is
> ok. On of the better ones on </head> closing an unopened <head>, as
> far as I can read, it is there... :)
> I have a small htm file which I include in as first thing in all
> files, so thay are all the same. But the validated result is
> different...
>
> Am I the only one seeing this?
>
> WBR & merry christmas
> Sonnich
And best wishes to you too. I am a bit miffed at your above? I
included for you some html markup that was not error riddled and
was asking you if it was roughly what you had in mind and did you
have some specific question about it. But you are talking about
all sorts of errors as if you had not looked at my effort (which
was not meant to solve any problem but to supply, because it is
xmas, somthing a bit more error free).
But this xmas spirit is getting real strong today and I will go
one further, I will do what you are being urged to do by JK,
namely supply a url:
http://netweaver.com.au/alt/sonnich.html
Now is there some question you have about this (which is sort of
a mildly cleaned up version of yours - "it" does not have 54
errors)?
--
dorayme
[Back to original message]
|