> The dev site seems better (it at least has a doctype and validated
> minus 1 simple error), but it's using an HTML doctype. Wake up people,
> it's 2009, HTML is DEAD!
No it isn't.
Google.com, Apple.com and most other relevant business declare HTML in their
doctypes. Except from Microsoft.com
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 00:18:31 -0500 Nick Hughart said:
> I'll throw my 2c into the mix.
> The current e.org is completely fubar with respect to standards. It
> doesn't even contain a doctype. I won't go any further on how much of
html does not REQUIRE a doctype. plain html has existed ever since
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:27:45 -0300
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Toma wrote:
> > 2009/6/23 Viktor Kojouharov :
> >> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 09:23 -0600, Dan Kronstal wrote:
> >>> Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org
> >>> has looked lik
On Wednesday 24 June 2009 15:38:10 Kostis Kapelonis wrote:
> O/H Dan Kronstal έγραψε:
> > Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has looked
> > like this: http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8599/e17inie.jpg since the
> > new design.
>
> Well I also use IE7 and e.org seems to
O/H Dan Kronstal έγραψε:
> Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has looked
> like this: http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8599/e17inie.jpg since the new
> design.
Well I also use IE7 and e.org seems to render fine
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/4261/eorg.png
E.org/d
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:10:55 +0200 Viktor Kojouharov
said:
> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 09:23 -0600, Dan Kronstal wrote:
> > Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has looked
> > like this: http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8599/e17inie.jpg since the new
> > design.
> >
> > C
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 09:06:04AM +0200, Luca De Marini wrote:
> 2009/6/23 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
>
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Toma wrote:
> > > 2009/6/23 Viktor Kojouharov :
> > >> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 09:23 -0600, Dan Kronstal wrote:
> > >>> Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or
2009/6/23 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Toma wrote:
> > 2009/6/23 Viktor Kojouharov :
> >> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 09:23 -0600, Dan Kronstal wrote:
> >>> Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has
> looked
> >>> like this: http://img231.imagesha
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Toma wrote:
> 2009/6/23 Viktor Kojouharov :
>> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 09:23 -0600, Dan Kronstal wrote:
>>> Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has looked
>>> like this: http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8599/e17inie.jpg since the new
>>> d
2009/6/23 Viktor Kojouharov :
> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 09:23 -0600, Dan Kronstal wrote:
>> Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has looked
>> like this: http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8599/e17inie.jpg since the new
>> design.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Dan
>
> no one cares. e u
Looks this way on ie8 maybe that's what he meant?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 22, 2009, at 12:55 PM, andres wrote:
> On Monday 22 June 2009 12:23:45 Dan Kronstal wrote:
>> Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has
>> looked
>> like this: http://img231.imageshack.us/im
Look
Sent from my iPod
On Jun 22, 2009, at 12:55 PM, andres wrote:
> On Monday 22 June 2009 12:23:45 Dan Kronstal wrote:
>> Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has
>> looked
>> like this: http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8599/e17inie.jpg
>> since the
>> new des
On Monday 22 June 2009 12:23:45 Dan Kronstal wrote:
> Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has looked
> like this: http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8599/e17inie.jpg since the
> new design.
>
Does this happen with http://enlightenment.org/dev/?
It does not in the ie7 ver
On Monday, 22 June 2009, at 19:48:31 (+0200),
Viktor Kojouharov wrote:
> perhaps. but that could lead to even more messed-up layout
Not if it's done correctly.
Coding for Firefox and ignoring IE simply because it's what the
majority of us use is just as wrong and tyrannical as web developers
cod
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Viktor Kojouharov wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 19:17 +0200, Vincent Torri wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Viktor Kojouharov wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 09:23 -0600, Dan Kronstal wrote:
Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has looked
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 19:17 +0200, Vincent Torri wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Viktor Kojouharov wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 09:23 -0600, Dan Kronstal wrote:
> >> Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has looked
> >> like this: http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Viktor Kojouharov wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 09:23 -0600, Dan Kronstal wrote:
>> Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has looked
>> like this: http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8599/e17inie.jpg since the new
>> design.
>
> no one cares. e users
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Dan Kronstal wrote:
> Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has looked
> like this: http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8599/e17inie.jpg since the new
> design.
about that, I suggest to the website maintainers to run the HTML and CSS
validators on t
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 09:23 -0600, Dan Kronstal wrote:
> Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has looked
> like this: http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8599/e17inie.jpg since the new
> design.
>
> Cheers
>
> Dan
no one cares. e users will not be using IE anytime soon.
Hey folks. Not sure if anyone knows or cares, but in IE7 e.org has looked
like this: http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8599/e17inie.jpg since the new
design.
Cheers
Dan
--
Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the
20 matches
Mail list logo
