tedd wrote: > At 11:22 AM +0100 12/24/08, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: >> David Laakso wrote: >>> <http://www.chelseacreekstudio.com/ca/cssd/sg.html> >> >> ...but it's valid ;-) > > If it wasn't, I would check the temperature of Hell as well.
I tried anyway, but the document's source-code can't be validated and the CSS validator figured out that the document validates as CSS level 2.1 since there's no CSS at all in it... <http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hell.htm> ..."no CSS = valid CSS", which is a surprising result. Can't verify the document's content in details, but it looks interesting... :-) > Cheers and season's greetings. God Jul! M 't.c.' -- http://www.gunlaug.no ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [[email protected]] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
