Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Thierry Koblentz wrote: I run WAMP, and when I test a php version of my test page, I get the exact same result as in IIS. What does PHP have to do with SSI?? Apache has an INCLUDES filter and parses SS-Includes, no? But do you mean SSI or IIS? I'm not sure I understand that question. You say above , and when I test a php version of my test page, -- hence my confusion about a php version of an *SSI* test... NP. I just ran a test on a *remote* server and I got the same result as yours. For the sake of completeness -- i.e. terminating a thread most folks are probably tired of :-) -- it'd be nice to note the Apache version involved in the differing results, e.g. Apache 2.2.3: DOCUMENT_URI is the calling page, not the include I'm guessing the alternate result was on 1.3.x, but it'd be good to know for sure. -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com opinion: webtuitive.blogspot.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Hassan Schroeder wrote: Thierry Koblentz wrote: For the sake of completeness -- i.e. terminating a thread most folks are probably tired of :-) It has been an interesting thread for me. I had no idea that Apache and IIS returned different DOCUMENT_URI values when using echo in an Include... it'd be nice to note the Apache version involved in the differing results, e.g. It's because I got the same values yesterday with IIS and Apache that I decided to publish the page on a remote server (to make sure). This morning... that page acts the same locally *and* remotely (???) I guess that was too much testing last night. :-) --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Patrick H. Lauke wrote: But include files won't make the links submit differently (depending on which document host them), and I think that's what Tee is after. Yes, SSIs wouldn't, but ? try !--#echo var=DOCUMENT_URI -- on your SSI-enabled page :-) FWIW! -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com opinion: webtuitive.blogspot.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Hassan Schroeder wrote: Patrick H. Lauke wrote: But include files won't make the links submit differently (depending on which document host them), and I think that's what Tee is after. Yes, SSIs wouldn't, but ? try !--#echo var=DOCUMENT_URI -- on your SSI-enabled page :-) Hassan, I think you're taking this out of context. The original post was: Include files are your friend (even humble SSIs, if there's no server-side scripting language available) It was about using SS-I *without* server-side scripting. --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Thierry Koblentz wrote: It was about using SS-I *without* server-side scripting. which was exactly my point -- vanilla SSI meets the requirement :-) -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com opinion: webtuitive.blogspot.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
But include files won't make the links submit differently (depending on which document host them), and I think that's what Tee is after. Yes, SSIs wouldn't, but ? try !--#echo var=DOCUMENT_URI -- on your SSI-enabled page :-) Thierry wrote a nifty lightweight snippet for me :) It works excellently. http://eto.marinersq.com/?q=multilevel.html The section 508 generates the result for home page but with inner pages, it requres one more click for contentquality.com, I guess it's to do with the way hisoftware handles the validation for external link. Don't mind the validation errors if you see any, as I haven't get a chance to fit them. By the way, I use the Etomite CMS and it does clean markup with strict (x)html. It probably be better to use the PHP to generate validation links, but I don't know how to do it (yet), and I like the fact that I can use the same JS snippet for static HTML site. Cheers, tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Tee G. Peng wrote: It works excellently. http://eto.marinersq.com/?q=multilevel.html The section 508 generates the result for home page but with inner pages, it requres one more click for contentquality.com, I guess it's to do with the way hisoftware handles the validation for external link. It seems to work fine, what happens is that contentquality.com has a policy about URL submission. If you followed both links in less than a minute or so, Cynthia says: The maximum allowed URL submissions has been reached for the Host: eto.marinersq.com. --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Hassan Schroeder wrote: Thierry Koblentz wrote: It was about using SS-I *without* server-side scripting. which was exactly my point -- vanilla SSI meets the requirement :-) And it's a very good point ;-) I always thought the echo directive didn't work in shtml pages (only include), but it *does*. I guess this is one more reason to never use htm or html, but at least shtml. No? What would be the reason for choosing htm or html for file extension? Thanks. --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
On 10/25/06, Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hassan Schroeder wrote: Thierry Koblentz wrote: It was about using SS-I *without* server-side scripting. which was exactly my point -- vanilla SSI meets the requirement :-) And it's a very good point ;-) I always thought the echo directive didn't work in shtml pages (only include), but it *does*. I guess this is one more reason to never use htm or html, but at least shtml. No? What would be the reason for choosing htm or html for file extension? Youthful ignorance? -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... portfolio.christianmontoya.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Thierry Koblentz wrote: Hassan Schroeder wrote: Thierry Koblentz wrote: It was about using SS-I *without* server-side scripting. which was exactly my point -- vanilla SSI meets the requirement :-) And it's a very good point ;-) I always thought the echo directive didn't work in shtml pages (only include), but it *does*. Let me take that whole thing back :) The original idea was to use an Include to keep the markup in *one place*, right? But if we use the echo directive in that include, it returns the include itself, *not* the document that *hosts* the include, right? So, if I'm right, the approach would not really work with *SS-Includes*, even with vanilla ones ;-) I guess the directive would make more sense in Templates, like Dreamweaver templates and such where content is more duplicated than Included. Does that make sense? --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Chris Williams wrote: Assuming that the user in this case is the developer who is developing the site (the only one who has a reason for the output), then they can unblock it... Oh great, so for the mere mortal users these already cryptic and useless links can become even more useless and cryptic because, when clicked, they then take them to an even more ominous error page? P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Christian Montoya wrote: On 10/25/06, Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would be the reason for choosing htm or html for file extension? Youthful ignorance? DOS 8.3 filename compatibility? :-P P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Christian Montoya wrote: I guess this is one more reason to never use htm or html, but at least shtml. No? What would be the reason for choosing htm or html for file extension? Youthful ignorance? I think so. The only reason I can think of is if these files need to be accessed *directly*, not through a server. --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
On my site, the links only appear when an administrative user is logged in. From: Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links Oh great, so for the mere mortal users these already cryptic and useless links can become even more useless and cryptic because, when clicked, they then take them to an even more ominous error page? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
On 10/25/06, Chris Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On my site, the links only appear when an administrative user is logged in. From: Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links Oh great, so for the mere mortal users these already cryptic and useless links can become even more useless and cryptic because, when clicked, they then take them to an even more ominous error page? For that, you might as well just put the links in your toolbar... when you click a link in your toolbar (such as your bookmarks) you send the referrer, so you can easily validate any site as long as the link is in your browser. The day more and more features are provided by the browser and not by the website, the day the Internet moves forward. - me -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... portfolio.christianmontoya.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Slapping head with a great Homer-esque Doh... Thx... From: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links For that, you might as well just put the links in your toolbar... when you click a link in your toolbar (such as your bookmarks) you send the referrer, so you can easily validate any site as long as the link is in your browser. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
On Oct 25, 2006, at 12:42 PM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Chris Williams wrote: Assuming that the user in this case is the developer who is developing the site (the only one who has a reason for the output), then they can unblock it... Oh great, so for the mere mortal users these already cryptic and useless links can become even more useless and cryptic because, when clicked, they then take them to an even more ominous error page? P Patrick, your co-authored book Web Accessibility: Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance has been in my amazon cart for a while and it's likely I will get to read it next month. I first learned the web standards because I was curious, no clue what those 'xhtml', 'css' and 'section 508' about in many websites I visited. My curiosity made me click to find out, further more dive into it. You see, you, and many authors who preach, write about web standards, accessibility need supporter like me, who is a bit of ignorance, a bit naive, but dedicate to try to learn the good. It's not fun to see you poke fun :) Ok, I do see it looks ugly for those links stay in the footer because it looks so crowded there, I will make them less visible later tonight I get back to the project again. tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Thierry Koblentz wrote: The original idea was to use an Include to keep the markup in *one place*, right? But if we use the echo directive in that include, it returns the include itself, *not* the document that *hosts* the include, right? wrong. :-) The DOCUMENT_URI reflects the requested page, not the included page/ snippet. So it's still an easy way to accomplish this. I guess this is one more reason to never use htm or html, but at least shtml. No? No. :-) Personally I think shtml is ugly, and there's no reason for it; make all your .html files server-parsed. For most real-world apps and circumstances the overhead is negligible. FWIW! -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com opinion: webtuitive.blogspot.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Hassan Schroeder wrote: Thierry Koblentz wrote: The original idea was to use an Include to keep the markup in *one place*, right? But if we use the echo directive in that include, it returns the include itself, *not* the document that *hosts* the include, right? wrong. :-) Really? What about this then?: http://www.tjkdesign.com/test/default.shtml IMHO, it sows that using the echo directive in an nclude will always return the same path, no matter which document is served. Personally I think shtml is ugly, and there's no reason for it; make all your .html files server-parsed. For most real-world apps and circumstances the overhead is negligible. But not everybody can change server settings, isn't ;-) --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Hassan Schroeder wrote: Thierry Koblentz wrote: I run WAMP, and when I test a php version of my test page, I get the exact same result as in IIS. What does PHP have to do with SSI?? Apache has an INCLUDES filter and parses SS-Includes, no? But do you mean SSI or IIS? I'm not sure I understand that question. All I can tell you is my test shows the DOCUMENT_URI of the parent document, not the include. But that's on a system inside a firewall that I can't expose, so you'll have to take my word for it. NP. I just ran a test on a *remote* server and I got the same result as yours. There are lots of hosting plans. Some offer .htaccess override to allow people to enable specific features of the Apache httpd. And some don't. And some people lease servers, virtual or otherwise, so they don't have to worry about the whole issue, and can provide the best solution for their clients, full stop. You pay for what you want, or need, eh? That's not a reason to not discuss what the technology can provide... I totally agree, and that's why I put *IIS* into the picture . ;-) --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Hi, I wonder if there is (free) js code out there that can generate xhtml/css validation links that people put at the bottom of their sites. It's quite tedious to make the links manually, page by page. Thanks! tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Tee G. Peng wrote: Hi, I wonder if there is (free) js code out there that can generate xhtml/css validation links that people put at the bottom of their sites. Maybe more of a philosophical question here, but: why would you want those links on all pages (assuming this is client work, yes)? Who are they useful to, if not other developers and/or yourself? It's quite tedious to make the links manually, page by page. Include files are your friend (even humble SSIs, if there's no server-side scripting language available) P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
You don't need a snippet of code. Just put in: http://validator.w3.org/check/referer And http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer These will check the page that called them... From: Tee G. Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, I wonder if there is (free) js code out there that can generate xhtml/css validation links that people put at the bottom of their sites. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Chris Williams wrote: You don't need a snippet of code. Just put in: http://validator.w3.org/check/referer And http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer These will check the page that called them... As long as the user's browser doesn't have referer blocking, such as is the case with Norton Internet Security if I remember correctly. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Hi Patrick, On Oct 24, 2006, at 5:34 PM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Maybe more of a philosophical question here, but: why would you want those links on all pages (assuming this is client work, yes)? Who are they useful to, if not other developers and/or yourself? Yes, it's for client's site. Not out of fame but perhaps marketing purpose. My dedication with extra hours of work for validating markups, css and section 508 (note, I don't just rely on validation tool but my eyes) on each page pay off, because I got a few gigs from companies and web design firms to do web standards compliant sites :). If I only put a link on the home page, it only mean the home page is validated, not other pages. Clients want their clients/ audiences know that each page is validated and section 508 compliant. Besides, this is a good way to promote web standards I think. It's quite tedious to make the links manually, page by page. Include files are your friend (even humble SSIs, if there's no server-side scripting language available) But include file can't generate individual links correct? for examples home.html http://validator.w3.org/check/referer?http://www.site.com/ home.html about.html http://validator.w3.org/check/referer?http:// www.site.com/about.html I see Chris got me the answer I needed. Thanks, Chris. tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Tee G. Peng wrote: Yes, it's for client's site. Not out of fame but perhaps marketing purpose. My dedication with extra hours of work for validating markups, css and section 508 (note, I don't just rely on validation tool but my eyes) on each page pay off, because I got a few gigs from companies and web design firms to do web standards compliant sites :). If I only put a link on the home page, it only mean the home page is validated, not other pages. Clients want their clients/ audiences know that each page is validated and section 508 compliant. Besides, this is a good way to promote web standards I think. Personally, I'd say that a discreet mention in a site's about or credits section is more appropriate. *users* don't have a use for those links, and being sent to a technical site (such as a validator results page) won't make them any more clued up about standards. IMHO, of course. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Include files are your friend (even humble SSIs, if there's no server-side scripting language available) You're right about using referer, it's not reliable. But include files won't make the links submit differently (depending on which document host them), and I think that's what Tee is after. --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Thierry Koblentz wrote: Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Include files are your friend (even humble SSIs, if there's no server-side scripting language available) You're right about using referer, it's not reliable. But include files won't make the links submit differently (depending on which document host them), and I think that's what Tee is after. Yes, SSIs wouldn't, but I'd think with proper scripting languages you could have includes which then, in turn, echo out the current page's url as parameter for the validator link. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
Assuming that the user in this case is the developer who is developing the site (the only one who has a reason for the output), then they can unblock it... From: Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links As long as the user's browser doesn't have referer blocking, such as is the case with Norton Internet Security if I remember correctly. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a js snippet that can generate xhtml/css validation links
On 10/24/06, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thierry Koblentz wrote: Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Include files are your friend (even humble SSIs, if there's no server-side scripting language available) You're right about using referer, it's not reliable. But include files won't make the links submit differently (depending on which document host them), and I think that's what Tee is after. Yes, SSIs wouldn't, but I'd think with proper scripting languages you could have includes which then, in turn, echo out the current page's url as parameter for the validator link. Very, very easy to do with PHP, for example, and just about any other decent scripting language. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... portfolio.christianmontoya.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
