Posted by Luigi Donatello Asero on 05/06/06 16:19

"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:445c24b2$0$3687$cb0e7fc6@news.centralva.net...
> Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
> > "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:445c1d95$0$3706$cb0e7fc6@news.centralva.net...
> >> Nico Schuyt wrote:
> <snip>
> >
http://www.htmlhelp.com/cgi-bin/validate.cgi?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com%2F&warnings=yes&spider=yes&hidevalid=yes
> >>> The closing tag </th> is probably optional.
> >>>
> >> It is, but the other errors he has made are not. Also his inconstancy
> >> with closing tags makes it damn confusing!
> >
> >
> > You did not mention so many errors,
>
> I pointed out some...as I said your coding style is not 'pretty' and not
> conducive to debugging.
>
> > actually and on the other hand, if you
> > had done it and they had not been optional,
>
> Yes, in HTML 4.01 some elements have optional closing tags. Personally I
> find using all option closing tags makes debugging easier because it set
> a definite end to a block of markup analogous to braces '{}' enclosing a
> code block in C++ or Perl. However being inconsistent within document
> close some but not others (as you have done) is very confusing and make
> debugging nearly impossible.
>
>
> > the question would have been unanswered that is about why the validator
had
> > not displayed them....
>
> Don't know I said. Maybe you confused the beejeebers out of it, you have
> a gift with confusion.


Sorry, but I think you are wrong.
I agree on that it is better to close tags but I also rely on validators.
Perhaps I should not but the fact is that they also let me spare a lot of
time.

--
Luigi Donatello Asero
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/svezia.html
今天二零零六年五月六日
星期六

[Back to original message]