Pardon me for continuing this off-topicness, but this just caught my attention BIG TIME.
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:12:54 +0000, Patrick H. Lauke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ah, thank you for the usual Chewbacca defense...when a discussion on > standards doesn't go the way you like, just point the validator at one > of the other person's sites and point at their errors. The fact that one > of my team (oh yes, team...or did you think I was the only one working > on a large University site?) borked a recent change obviously diminishes > any of the points I made in the discussion...*sigh* Worse is picking a personal/corporate site and think that showcases someone's abilities. Pardon me, but my markup doesn't show that I know all specs quite well, and funnily enough, people haven't even started to me on that. They know that sometimes you don't get to showcase your (maybe even supreme) knowledge through a personal site, or even worse, a client's site. Sorry people, but this is ridiculous. Patrick, hope you will just ignore this from now on. We oughta know better than that. (Respect to Chewbacca though.) -- Cheers, Rob. http://zooibaai.nl | http://digital-proof.org | http://chancecube.com ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
