NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 30.11.2007 02:57:29 von kurdayon
Hi,
I try to validate one page with the http://validator.w3.org. This is
the error-message that I got:
NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
And this is the explanation to the error-message:
The sequence can be interpreted in at least two different
ways, depending on the DOCTYPE of the document. For HMTL 4.01 Strict,
the '/' terminates the tag '). However, since
many browsers don't interpret it this way, even in the presence of an
HMTL 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE, it is best to avoid it completely in pure
HTML documents and reserve its use solely for those written in XHTML.
However, it does not help. I do not have any tags in my HTML
code. This is the body-part of the code:
The validator complains about the second line of the code.
Could anybody pleas help me with this problem?
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 30.11.2007 04:04:39 von Bone Ur
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 30 Nov 2007 01:57:29 GMT
Kurda Yon scribed:
> Hi,
>
> I try to validate one page with the http://validator.w3.org. This is
> the error-message that I got:
> NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
>
> And this is the explanation to the error-message:
> The sequence can be interpreted in at least two different
> ways, depending on the DOCTYPE of the document. For HMTL 4.01 Strict,
> the '/' terminates the tag '). However, since
> many browsers don't interpret it this way, even in the presence of an
> HMTL 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE, it is best to avoid it completely in pure
> HTML documents and reserve its use solely for those written in XHTML.
>
> However, it does not help. I do not have any tags in my HTML
> code. This is the body-part of the code:
>
>
>
>
> The validator complains about the second line of the code.
>
> Could anybody pleas help me with this problem?
I think you need a "method" attribute in the form:
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 30.11.2007 05:24:13 von Harlan Messinger
Kurda Yon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I try to validate one page with the http://validator.w3.org. This is
> the error-message that I got:
> NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
>
> And this is the explanation to the error-message:
> The sequence can be interpreted in at least two different
> ways, depending on the DOCTYPE of the document. For HMTL 4.01 Strict,
> the '/' terminates the tag '). However, since
> many browsers don't interpret it this way, even in the presence of an
> HMTL 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE, it is best to avoid it completely in pure
> HTML documents and reserve its use solely for those written in XHTML.
>
> However, it does not help. I do not have any tags in my HTML
> code. This is the body-part of the code:
>
>
>
You can't have an empty form in HTML 4.01 strict.
>
> The validator complains about the second line of the code.
>
> Could anybody pleas help me with this problem?
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 30.11.2007 09:18:05 von jkorpela
Scripsit Bone Ur:
> I think you need a "method" attribute in the form:
Consider reading HTML specifications some day, if you intend to keep
giving advice on HTML in public.
It's generally a quick way to ridicule oneself by commenting on
_validation_ problems without having the slightest clue about DTDs.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 30.11.2007 09:29:35 von Els
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> It's generally a quick way to ridicule oneself by commenting on
> _validation_ problems without having the slightest clue about DTDs.
It's generally a quick way of alienating oneself from a group by
commenting on other people's possible minor mistakes in a patronizing
and condescending way.
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 30.11.2007 10:00:27 von rf
"Els" wrote in message
news:dpnze0kj3mz2.x3i6hd3g4osh.dlg@40tude.net...
> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
>> It's generally a quick way to ridicule oneself by commenting on
>> _validation_ problems without having the slightest clue about DTDs.
>
> It's generally a quick way of alienating oneself from a group by
> commenting on other people's possible minor mistakes in a patronizing
> and condescending way.
Patronising and condescending? I would have said bloody arrogantly abusing.
Typical of Korpela though. Then again I very rarely read anything he posts
anymore. See the name, set the thread to ignore.
--
Richard.
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 30.11.2007 10:06:46 von Els
rf wrote:
> "Els" wrote in message
> news:dpnze0kj3mz2.x3i6hd3g4osh.dlg@40tude.net...
>> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>>
>>> It's generally a quick way to ridicule oneself by commenting on
>>> _validation_ problems without having the slightest clue about DTDs.
>>
>> It's generally a quick way of alienating oneself from a group by
>> commenting on other people's possible minor mistakes in a patronizing
>> and condescending way.
>
> Patronising and condescending? I would have said bloody arrogantly abusing.
Was trying to be polite..
> Typical of Korpela though. Then again I very rarely read anything he posts
> anymore. See the name, set the thread to ignore.
Well, I got the alienating right then ;-)
(and apparently I managed to reply before you had the chance to set
this thread to ignore :P)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 30.11.2007 10:19:28 von jkorpela
Scripsit Kurda Yon:
> I try to validate one page with the http://validator.w3.org.
What's the URL of your page?
> This is
> the error-message that I got:
> NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
Nasty, isn't it? Who could guess that "NET" means "Null End Tag"? And
this confusing error message has a fairly confusing explanation:
> The sequence can be interpreted in at least two different
> ways, depending on the DOCTYPE of the document.
Read that without the "at least" part, and read "DOCTYPE" as "media type
(HTML vs. XHTML)".
> For HMTL 4.01 Strict,
> the '/' terminates the tag ').
Read "For HTML 4.01 Strict" as "Formally, for HTML versions prior to
XHTML".
> However, since
> many browsers don't interpret it this way,
Read that without the word "many".
> even in the presence of an
> HMTL 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE,
Skip that as mere confusion.
> it is best to avoid it completely in pure
> HTML documents and reserve its use solely for those written in XHTML.
Well, _that_ is correct.
> However, it does not help.
I'm not surprised.
> I do not have any tags in my HTML
> code.
"FOO" or "foo" is common computer jargon, acting as a placeholder for
anything that might be suitable in some context. Here it stands
generically for any element name.
> This is the body-part of the code:
>
>
>
No it isn't.
> The validator complains about the second line of the code.
No it doesn't. The code, when inside a suitable container, passes
validation as HTML 4.01 Transitional. It fails validation as HTML 4.01
Strict, but for a completely different reason with a completely
different error message (since there is no block element inside the form
element, it's not valid HTML 4.01 Strict, and the validator reports: end
tag for "FORM" which is not finished).
So what's the URL?
Well, looking into my crystal ball, I see that your form tag is actually
something like
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 30.11.2007 10:24:41 von jkorpela
Scripsit Els:
> Was trying to be polite..
If you babble pointlessly without having anything to say about the topic
at hand, or the group topics in general, it really doesn't matter how
politely you do that.
But I'd still like to ask you to be polite enough to keep using the same
forged From field, until you have a clue or something useful to say.
Thank you in advance.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 30.11.2007 10:31:34 von Els
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Scripsit Els:
>
>> Was trying to be polite..
>
> If you babble pointlessly without having anything to say about the topic
> at hand, or the group topics in general, it really doesn't matter how
> politely you do that.
I'd never have thought to have to break this to _you_ of all people,
but...
This is Usenet! If your problem gets solved while we are discussing
it, it's a bonus - this is not a helpdesk and all that. And I was
merely commenting on your post, and very much on the topic of your
post. Not the topic of the OPs post, that's correct. But you weren't
either, were you?
> But I'd still like to ask you to be polite enough to keep using the same
> forged From field, until you have a clue or something useful to say.
> Thank you in advance.
My From field isn't forged. You just _assume_ it is forged, because it
looks like a regular forged address. It is not though. You can test it
if you don't believe me.
As for clues to say something useful, I think it is useful to point
out once in a while that the way you respond to people is not a very
nice one.
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 30.11.2007 12:00:29 von rf
"Els" wrote in message
news:1x2mki3e2g8ah.vjll26vxu3uw$.dlg@40tude.net...
> (and apparently I managed to reply before you had the chance to set
> this thread to ignore :P)
I always look out for what you might have to say Els :-)
--
Richard.
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 30.11.2007 12:25:32 von Els
rf wrote:
> I always look out for what you might have to say Els :-)
I'm flattered! :-)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 30.11.2007 15:56:16 von Sherm Pendley
"Jukka K. Korpela" writes:
> Scripsit Bone Ur:
>
>> I think you need a "method" attribute in the form:
>
> Consider reading HTML specifications some day, if you intend to keep
> giving advice on HTML in public.
>
> It's generally a quick way to ridicule oneself by commenting on
> _validation_ problems without having the slightest clue about DTDs.
Would it have hurt you to say that nicely? As in "No, the method attribute
is optional according to the DTD."
You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
sherm--
--
WV News, Blogging, and Discussion: http://wv-www.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 30.11.2007 16:21:09 von jkorpela
Scripsit Sherman Pendley:
>> It's generally a quick way to ridicule oneself by commenting on
>> _validation_ problems without having the slightest clue about DTDs.
>
> Would it have hurt you to say that nicely?
Yes.
> As in "No, the method
> attribute is optional according to the DTD."
That would have been pointless. The problem was the very approach of
giving advice on validation issues without understanding what
validation, just "thinking" that something could help, instead of taking
a look at the DTD or at the error message that was mentioned. There are
ideas that are so stupid that they deserve no serious comments.
> You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
I'm not trying to catch flies. I'm quite happy with letting a million
flies be right, and I'm trying keep them away from my sight.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 30.11.2007 16:31:04 von Els
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Scripsit Sherman Pendley:
>> Would it have hurt you to say that nicely?
>
> Yes.
Says it all.
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 30.11.2007 23:08:41 von dorayme
In article ,
Sherman Pendley wrote:
> You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
I don't know about flies*, but I have scoured the net for a good
non chemical way of dealing with cockroaches and none of them
work much. Any ideas?
--------
* Actually, I know that meat works better with flies than honey.
--
dorayme
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 01.12.2007 10:10:40 von Els
dorayme wrote:
> In article ,
> Sherman Pendley wrote:
>
>> You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
>
> I don't know about flies*, but I have scoured the net for a good
> non chemical way of dealing with cockroaches and none of them
> work much. Any ideas?
http://www.k12.hi.us/~rkubota/digiphoto/cockroach/roach.html
Or, as John Bokma writes on his blog: "We like to have geckos in the
house because their diet probably consist for a large part of juvenile
cockroaches, an insect we really don't want to have in the house but
is extremely hard to keep out."
Any geckos where you live? :-)
> * Actually, I know that meat works better with flies than honey.
I think I'd prefer to have honey in various places in the house. It
doesn't stink like meat after a few days...
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 01.12.2007 18:01:42 von Adrienne Boswell
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Els
writing in news:s1i13osuc607.1meyfabmp7tpl$.dlg@40tude.net:
>> I don't know about flies*, but I have scoured the net for a good
>> non chemical way of dealing with cockroaches and none of them
>> work much. Any ideas?
>
> http://www.k12.hi.us/~rkubota/digiphoto/cockroach/roach.html
>
> Or, as John Bokma writes on his blog: "We like to have geckos in the
> house because their diet probably consist for a large part of juvenile
> cockroaches, an insect we really don't want to have in the house but
> is extremely hard to keep out."
>
Good thing to know. Another reason I never kill spiders, they also like
nasty little bugs. As a matter of fact, we have a black widow we've
named Martha, who lives under the porch. I never have bug problems, and
I think Martha is probably well fed - I'm not going to go ask her,
though.
We also had a cricket living under my desk for a while, but one night
Rolo (the cat) [http://tinyurl.com/22bjtm], got it. I miss it.
--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 01.12.2007 21:12:41 von Bone Ur
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:18:05 GMT
Jukka K. Korpela scribed:
> Scripsit Bone Ur:
>
>> I think you need a "method" attribute in the form:
>
> Consider reading HTML specifications some day, if you intend to keep
> giving advice on HTML in public.
Well, I did say "I think..." It was something to try. If it didn't work,
so be it; try something else.
> It's generally a quick way to ridicule oneself by commenting on
> _validation_ problems without having the slightest clue about DTDs.
>
I think you are ridiculephobic. Trying to help someone by presenting a
suggestion as a possible solution isn't ridiculous at all, but certain
responses to the effort can be.
--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 01.12.2007 21:25:00 von Bone Ur
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:21:09 GMT
Jukka K. Korpela scribed:
>> Would it have hurt you to say that nicely?
>
> Yes.
>
>> As in "No, the method
>> attribute is optional according to the DTD."
>
> That would have been pointless. The problem was the very approach of
> giving advice on validation issues without understanding what
> validation, just "thinking" that something could help, instead of taking
> a look at the DTD or at the error message that was mentioned. There are
> ideas that are so stupid that they deserve no serious comments.
Oh hell, that isn't true at all. "Help" isn't an absolutely flawless,
errorless entity; it's an earnest attempt to assist someone in good faith.
And polite rebuttals aren't "pointless" except in the minds of pedants.
>> You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
>
> I'm not trying to catch flies. I'm quite happy with letting a million
> flies be right, and I'm trying keep them away from my sight.
"The world can go to the dogs. As long as I'm right, that's all that
really matters." The funny thing is your irrational ire is making _you_
look more ridiculous than your "adversary".
I shall continue to assist posters with advice I believe correct without
checking each and every method or procedure I happen to mention. If this
perturbs you, I'll probably enjoy it.
--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 01.12.2007 22:01:15 von dorayme
In article ,
Els wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
> > ...good
> > non chemical way of dealing with cockroaches and none of them
> > work much. Any ideas?
>
> http://www.k12.hi.us/~rkubota/digiphoto/cockroach/roach.html
I have tried this sort of thing with poor results. If you look at
the actual figures reported in the article here, it is not hugely
encouraging. But I will try again and attend to trying to improve
a trap to suit the conditions here.
>
> Or, as John Bokma writes on his blog: "We like to have geckos in the
> house because their diet probably consist for a large part of juvenile
> cockroaches, an insect we really don't want to have in the house but
> is extremely hard to keep out."
>
> Any geckos where you live? :-)
There are lots of very small lizardy thngs in my garden, called
Skinks, but rarely see them in the house. They sure like ants.
They are not very big (pencil thick and half as long and I would
not think they would be a match for cockroaches. Have you ever
seen how huge some of those big black cockroaches are*?
------------
* Have lost the url for where someone actually has beautifully
caught them and painted their backs? Saw it ages ago when looking
into this business of traps.
I did see just now:
http://jafabrit.blogspot.com/2006/04/cockroaches.html
(there is nice song that suddenly starts so turn speakers down if
you don't like surprises like this...)
--
dorayme
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 02.12.2007 00:14:48 von dorayme
In article
,
dorayme wrote:
> There are lots of very small lizardy things in my garden, called
> Skinks, but I rarely see them in the house. They sure like ants to eat.
> They are not very big (pencil thick and half as long and I would
> not think they would be a match for cockroaches.
Just took a couple of pics from the garden 5 mins ago, there were
a whole bunch lazing in the sun but they scattered too quick when
approached:
http://netweaver.com.au/alt/pics/skink1.jpg
and
http://netweaver.com.au/alt/pics/skink2.jpg
(the bricks are very ordinary house brick dimensions, to give you
an idea of scale)
--
dorayme
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 02.12.2007 13:23:38 von jkorpela
Scripsit Bone Ur:
>> Consider reading HTML specifications some day, if you intend to keep
>> giving advice on HTML in public.
>
> Well, I did say "I think..."
It seems that you decided to proceed in ridiculing yourself rather than
study anything. Thank you for making this clear. It is now obvious that
the true value of your free advice is much below its price.
There was no need for your or anyone's _opinions_ on something that is a
matter of definitions and facts.
> It was something to try.
Now you are _really_ ridiculous.
It does not help at all to give "opinions" or "suggestions" in matters
that could be checked by any literate person in a couple of seconds. It
just distracts and makes others use the same foolish approach.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 02.12.2007 20:05:39 von Els
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> It does not help at all to give "opinions" or "suggestions" in matters
> that could be checked by any literate person in a couple of seconds.
I wonder if you've realised yet that by your standards you are the
only literate person on the whole of Usenet? (SCNR)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 02.12.2007 20:32:08 von Els
dorayme wrote:
> There are lots of very small lizardy thngs in my garden, called
> Skinks, but rarely see them in the house. They sure like ants.
> They are not very big (pencil thick and half as long and I would
> not think they would be a match for cockroaches. Have you ever
> seen how huge some of those big black cockroaches are*?
No idea about the Australian ones, I mean, you call your grasshoppers
kangaroos, but I've seen plenty of big ones, yes. One day in Dahab,
Sinai, we were at this 'restaurant' (read: outdoor lazing area with
food served) where all of a sudden a couple of hundreds of them just
barged in, running over one of the 'walls' (50cm high tresholds more
like). Never saw people stand up so quickly :-)
> ------------
> * Have lost the url for where someone actually has beautifully
> caught them and painted their backs? Saw it ages ago when looking
> into this business of traps.
>
> I did see just now:
>
> http://jafabrit.blogspot.com/2006/04/cockroaches.html
Those aren't caught though, they're rubber ones :-)
> (there is nice song that suddenly starts so turn speakers down if
> you don't like surprises like this...)
Thanks for the heads up - muted my sound before clicking :-)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 02.12.2007 20:33:16 von Els
dorayme wrote:
> http://netweaver.com.au/alt/pics/skink1.jpg
>
> http://netweaver.com.au/alt/pics/skink2.jpg
>
> (the bricks are very ordinary house brick dimensions, to give you
> an idea of scale)
The flower is a good enough measure too I think, they're tiny indeed.
Not big enough to eat cockraches, no :-)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 02.12.2007 21:24:25 von dorayme
In article <1vdqa3eisb1jp.1dyz3z46wsteq$.dlg@40tude.net>,
Els wrote:
> > * Have lost the url for where someone actually has beautifully
> > caught them and painted their backs? Saw it ages ago when looking
> > into this business of traps.
> >
> > I did see just now:
> >
> > http://jafabrit.blogspot.com/2006/04/cockroaches.html
>
> Those aren't caught though, they're rubber ones :-)
I know! That was the *closest* I could get to the real thing. I
can't find the reference I saw about two years ago or any of the
same type. It has stuck in my mind as quite a remarkable thing to
do and makes seeing the big black cockroaches a bit more amusing.
--
dorayme
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 02.12.2007 21:30:49 von dorayme
In article <1vdqa3eisb1jp.1dyz3z46wsteq$.dlg@40tude.net>,
Els wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
>
> > There are lots of very small lizardy thngs in my garden, called
> > Skinks, but rarely see them in the house. They sure like ants.
> > They are not very big (pencil thick and half as long and I would
> > not think they would be a match for cockroaches. Have you ever
> > seen how huge some of those big black cockroaches are*?
>
> No idea about the Australian ones, I mean, you call your grasshoppers
> kangaroos,
A Texan farmer goes to Australia for a vacation. There he meets
an Aussie farmer and gets talking. The Aussie shows off his big
wheat field and the Texan says, "Oh! We have wheat fields that
are at least twice as large."
Then they walk around the ranch a little, and the Aussie shows
off his herd of cattle. The Texan immediately says, "We have
longhorns that are at least twice as large as your cows."
The conversation has, meanwhile, almost died when the Texan sees
a herd of kangaroos hopping through the field in the distance.
Amazed, he asks, "What the hell are those?!"
The Aussie replies with an incredulous look, "Don't you have any
grasshoppers in Texas?"
--
dorayme
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 02.12.2007 21:31:09 von dorayme
In article <147u3zfj4lztj.livuwde0y5zo.dlg@40tude.net>,
Els wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
>
> > http://netweaver.com.au/alt/pics/skink1.jpg
> >
> > http://netweaver.com.au/alt/pics/skink2.jpg
> >
> > (the bricks are very ordinary house brick dimensions, to give you
> > an idea of scale)
>
> The flower is a good enough measure too I think, they're tiny indeed.
> Not big enough to eat cockraches, no :-)
Well, Els, after your remarks about our grasshoppers being called
kangaroos (see your last post), I would have thought the bricks
would have been a more useful indicator. I mean bricks are an
industry standard world wide... sort of. But our nasturtiums...
well now... they could be any size
--
dorayme
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 02.12.2007 21:37:22 von Bone Ur
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:23:38 GMT
Jukka K. Korpela scribed:
> Scripsit Bone Ur:
>
>>> Consider reading HTML specifications some day, if you intend to keep
>>> giving advice on HTML in public.
>>
>> Well, I did say "I think..."
>
> It seems that you decided to proceed in ridiculing yourself rather than
> study anything. Thank you for making this clear. It is now obvious that
> the true value of your free advice is much below its price.
>
> There was no need for your or anyone's _opinions_ on something that is a
> matter of definitions and facts.
Is that a fact? Then why are you expressing an opinion about it?
>> It was something to try.
>
> Now you are _really_ ridiculous.
>
> It does not help at all to give "opinions" or "suggestions" in matters
> that could be checked by any literate person in a couple of seconds. It
> just distracts and makes others use the same foolish approach.
And all literate people know just where to look up html criteria...
Verbal intercourse is an important part of virtually any learning system
(excepting those specialized for the deaf, etc., which have alternates.)
Since you obviously don't fathom this, you'd make one very narrow-minded,
inferior instructor teaching any subject whatsoever. Ergo, your advice on
proper Usenet procedures herein is highly suspect.
--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
Re: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
am 03.12.2007 03:35:41 von Ed Mullen
dorayme wrote:
> The Aussie replies with an incredulous look, "Don't you have any
> grasshoppers in Texas?"
>
Thank you for this one! I'm forwarding it to my good friends in Austin,
TX. ;-)
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
There is one thing I would break up over and that is if she caught me
with another woman. I wouldn't stand for that. - Steve Martin