Re: ALA's Holy Grail is bad?
- From: "Greg N." <yodel_dodel@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:14:11 +0200
dorayme wrote:
http://coolhaus.de/misc/grail.htm
validator.W3.org is no perfectly happy though, says you are missing a </head> but it is there! I expect you grabbed for convenience this code from some site of your own...
No, I used one of the samples from dave@xxxxxxxxx as a starting point and did not bother to validate or even look at the doctype.
It's fixed now.
--
Gregor mit dem Motorrad auf Reisen
http://hothaus.de/greg-tour/
.
- References:
- ALA's Holy Grail is bad?
- From: dave
- Re: ALA's Holy Grail is bad?
- From: Toby A Inkster
- Re: ALA's Holy Grail is bad?
- From: John Hosking
- Re: ALA's Holy Grail is bad?
- From: dave
- Re: ALA's Holy Grail is bad?
- From: Beauregard T. Shagnasty
- Re: ALA's Holy Grail is bad?
- From: dave
- Re: ALA's Holy Grail is bad?
- From: Beauregard T. Shagnasty
- Re: ALA's Holy Grail is bad?
- From: dave
- Re: ALA's Holy Grail is bad?
- From: Greg N.
- Re: ALA's Holy Grail is bad?
- From: dorayme
- ALA's Holy Grail is bad?
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Usenet provider
- Next by Date: Image gallery query
- Previous by thread: Re: ALA's Holy Grail is bad?
- Next by thread: Re: ALA's Holy Grail is bad?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|