DeMoN LaG wrote: > T Carr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 21 Oct 2001: > >>My page does not have a problem. It displays wonderfully. There is >>no need to fix anything. LOL >> >>You anal retentive nerds are all alike. Get a freakin life. >> >> > > This is wonderful. You come in here, screaming and yelling that a site > doesn't work, get shown that the page has DOZENS of errors with the > code, make a big stink that basically you don't care what the code > should look at and someone should be implementing a magical genie into > Mozilla that reads the page authors mind for the way he wanted the page > to look, and then you call the people who were being very kind and > helpful "anal retentive nerds". You really are a riot. Let me sum up > this for you: > The problem with the web site is poor browser sniffing (incorrectly > thinks Mozilla is netscape 4.x and supports document.layers), and poor > HTML syntax. It's always lovely when you screw something up and the > results come out OK. It is lovely when you accidently add too much milk > to the pancake mix but it comes out being the best pancakes you've ever > had. But if you screwed up the ingrediants and it comes out bad, you > can't blame the stove for cooking it that way. > >
I do not know who's web site you are referring to. The Art Bell site?? I have no idea. www.fitnessforlife.com is coded very well thank you very much.:D In fact, its coded extremely well. From top to bottom. I could not give a whit if there are a few Alt tags missing. I consider it extraneous code for the paultry fraction of the blind population, most of which do not spend their hours behind a computer, but rather spend there days tripping over sidewalk curbs and bumping into things. You guys are funny. Now, if you are referring to the art bell site, I can't argue the point.
