>>Hi there, >> >>Last week I posted a question, but nobody gave an answer. I don't know why (I >>surtenly do not have a bad breath....),
> maybe not, but 140 errors generated in validating your html has the > same effect. Even the css validator wouldn't come near it. > <grin> > I would first rule out "bad" code as a problem through different > browser interpretations of what you want. Added value to this is that > it almost always gets rid of the "stupid" errors and more people are > willing to look. > > valid css and strict > the Listerine for web pages > Don't make a stupid first impression. Well, aren't You the one and only God of CSS, if You even bothered to look at the 140 errors reported by the validator You would have noticed that the URL's containing index.php?b=3&d=8&p=0 aren't correct. I know that: I'm not stupid (as you mentioned), Dreamweaver replaces & with the & and I didn't bother to change that because it was just an example. I changed the links in http://www.sebastian.nl/vivium/empty.htm: not one error! So it is valid XHTML 1.0 transitional, the way I learned it by reading books from Zeldman and Meyer. So, before calling people stupid: isn't this a place where we discuss CSS (not html, xhtml or xml) and help people with less knowledge about this issue? Niek Emmen ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
