> Hi! Hi!
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Ardo van Rangelrooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'm fully aware of this "problem", but it's only limited to "missing" > > </p>s. I've tried to get these in, but then several things went > > Uhm. If I understood her correctly it's about missing </LI> and not > missing </P>. The validator wouldn't bother with missing </P>, as that > is legal HTML. The current version only omits </p>s. All the other tags come in pairs. > > terribly wrong in the resulting layout. This will be fixed once I > > rewrite the whole thing using some XML Perl modules. > > What layout should go wrong in what way when missing </P>'s are added? > This _can't_ be. It must be something different. HTML doesn't care for > </P>. Well, I didn't look very deeply into the why, how and what at that time. All I can rememeber is that generating the HTML code as it's done currently suited the needs we had (although not completely, but that's due to some limitations in what HTML let us do and how browsers handle HTML). Thanks, Ardo -- Ardo van Rangelrooij home email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] home page: http://home.flevonet.nl/avrangel PGP fp: 3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73 7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9
