DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26647.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
This looks like fun.
I originally thought it said html:image instead of html:img . I
noticed that html:image does not have height and width. When I look
at my HTML Pocket Reference, I see only align, src and name listed for
input type=image..., but from testing I know that height and width
Quoting Paul Sundling [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I originally thought it said html:image instead of html:img . I
noticed that html:image does not have height and width. When I look
at my HTML Pocket Reference, I see only align, src and name listed for
input type=image..., but from testing I know
At 1:36 PM +1300 2/4/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Paul Sundling [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I originally thought it said html:image instead of html:img . I
noticed that html:image does not have height and width. When I look
at my HTML Pocket Reference, I see only align, src and name listed for
Joe Germuska wrote:
At 1:36 PM +1300 2/4/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Paul Sundling [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I originally thought it said html:image instead of html:img . I
noticed that html:image does not have height and width. When I look
at my HTML Pocket Reference, I see only align,
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Paul Sundling wrote:
Joe Germuska wrote:
At 1:36 PM +1300 2/4/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Paul Sundling [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I originally thought it said html:image instead of html:img . I
noticed that html:image does not have height and width. When I
