W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > May 2004

Re: strict

From: PWP - Information <info@professionalwebpages.biz>
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 18:23:56 +1000
Message-ID: <000401c44556$4b86b580$6401a8c0@hawkeye>
To: "David Dorward" <david@dorward.me.uk>
Cc: <www-validator@w3.org>


Thank you I am well aware of how the > quoting goes.

>Its quite cunning[2] the way you hide all your invalid code in

For the record, I did not make that code up, the flash compiler made it up.

If you can make up non-script valid XHTML code for the flash that detects
the flash player, please feel free to email it to me
so that I can use it on my site, that way I can make you happy

Thank you for pointing out that em and strong supposed error on my website,
but I was always led to beleive that <em> was the replacement for <i> and
<strong> was the replacement for <bold>
 I could be wrong about, until then I believe the code to be correct.

Thank you for your time, I appreciate you spending the time to reply to my
emails, and for looking at my code and checking it out.

Professional Web Pages

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Dorward" <david@dorward.me.uk>
To: "PWP - Information" <info@professionalwebpages.biz>
Cc: <www-validator@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: strict

> On Sat, 2004-05-29 at 08:43, PWP - Information wrote:
> > David,
> Uh oh...
> > you do not have to put that image there,
> I know that, but I wasn't the one complaining about it being invalid
> (which, as I said, it wasn't). You are responding to the wrong person...
> Here's a little hint about email for you.
> Traditionally in email one quotes the material from a PREVIOUS poster by
> prefixing each line with a > character. The number of >s indicate the
> level of quoting.
> This new thing of quoting the entire previous message without
> indentation prefixed by "----- Original Message -----" is a hard-to-read
> recent "innovation" and a lot of people using @w3.org use the older and
> more sensible style of using email.
> > why do you not put your own image or link?
> I don't see the need for it, I just make a standards statement instead.
> http://dorward.me.uk/about/standards/
> > try something like what i have on www.professionalwebpages.biz (right
> > at the bottom of the page)
> Oh dear. You really should read Appendix C of the XHTML 1.0
> Specification. If a browser ever handles your page as real XHTML your
> JavaScript is going to stop working.
> Its quite cunning[2] the way you hide all your invalid code in
> JavaScript.
> And <em><strong>Professional Web Pages complete list</strong></em> is a
> masterpeice - a section of text that is emphasised, strongly emphasised
> text.
> OK, I'm going to stop here (note to self - don't let yourself be tempted
> into auditing websites for free, its too profitable).
> [2] This is sarcasm by the way
> -- 
> David Dorward       <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/>   <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Received on Saturday, 29 May 2004 04:24:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:41 UTC