Mithun Bhattacharya wrote: > > I would consider it a bonus because in the real world most HTML is made > by hand and there is always human error to be considered. It wasnt > without reason that browsers are made to accept corrupt HTML as valid. That's a bold statement for html programmers. Not many of I know, code html by hand. Perhaps bigger reason for accepting corrupt html was/is definition of html for browsers itself is corrupted...;-) That's wouldn't be far from truth... > Mithun Shridhar _______________________________________________ linux-india-help mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-india-help
- Re: [LIH] Netscape vs Outlook... Kingsly John
- Re: [LIH] Netscape vs Ou... Shridhar Daithankar
- Re: [LIH] Netscape vs Outlook... Mithun Bhattacharya
- Re: [LIH] Netscape vs Outlook... Suresh Ramasubramanian
- Re: [LIH] Netscape vs Outlook... Kingsly John
- Re: [LIH] Netscape vs Outlook... Suresh Ramasubramanian
- Re: [LIH] Netscape vs Ou... Shridhar Daithankar
- Re: [LIH] Netscape vs Ou... Kingsly John
- Re: [LIH] Netscape vs Outlook... Mithun Bhattacharya
- Re: [LIH] Netscape vs Ou... Suresh Ramasubramanian
- Re: [LIH] Netscape vs Outlook... Shridhar Daithankar
- Re: [LIH] Netscape vs Ou... Mithun Bhattacharya
- Re: [LIH] Netscape vs Outlook... Kingsly John
- Re: [LIH] Netscape vs Outlook... Mithun Bhattacharya
- Re: [LIH] Netscape vs Outlook... Mario da Costa
- Re: [LIH] Netscape vs Ou... Shridhar Daithankar
- Re: [LIH] Netscape vs Outlook... Differentiated Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,
- Re: [LIH] Netscape vs Ou... Suresh Ramasubramanian
- Re: [LIH] Netscape vs Ou... Shridhar Daithankar
- Re: [LIH] Netscape vs Outlook... Mario da Costa
