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

Re: strict

From: PWP - Information <info@professionalwebpages.biz>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 08:54:42 +1000
Message-ID: <000d01c44699$1ad2cde0$6401a8c0@hawkeye>
To: "David Dorward" <david@dorward.me.uk>
Cc: "w3validator" <www-validator@w3.org>

then i will try that..thank you for your help on this subject
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Dorward" <david@dorward.me.uk>
To: "PWP - Information" <info@professionalwebpages.biz>
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 8:37 AM
Subject: Re: strict


> On Sat, 2004-05-29 at 09:23, PWP - Information wrote:
> > >Its quite cunning[2] the way you hide all your invalid code in
> >  >JavaScript.
> >
> > For the record, I did not make that code up, the flash compiler made it
up.
>
> You may not have written it, but you still used it.
>
> > 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
>
> You having a valid website will not make me happy.
> However... http://www.google.com/search?q=valid+flash
>
> > 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.
>
> You are wrong about that.
>
> In this case you probably DO want <strong>, but <strong> and <em>
> together make little sense. You should probably style <strong> to be
> italic to get that effect.
>
> -- 
> David Dorward       <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/>   <http://dorward.me.uk/>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 30 May 2004 18:55:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:13 GMT