tedd wrote:
At 8:47 PM -0400 6/17/09, Robert Cummings wrote:
tedd wrote:
As I understand it and is my experience, that is true -- a
stand-alone HTML attribute should be equal to itself, such as
selected="selected", or more specifically selected="SELECTED".
How is that MORE specific? XHTML is l
At 8:47 PM -0400 6/17/09, Robert Cummings wrote:
tedd wrote:
As I understand it and is my experience, that is true -- a
stand-alone HTML attribute should be equal to itself, such as
selected="selected", or more specifically selected="SELECTED".
How is that MORE specific? XHTML is like a cro
Ford, Mike wrote:
> On 17 June 2009 23:56, PJ advised:
>
>
>> Nisse Engstr�m wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:18:09 +0100, "Ford, Mike" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
This is very true -- but XHTML requires *all* attributes to have a
value, so an XHTML conformant page will use >>>
On 17 June 2009 23:56, PJ advised:
> Nisse Engström wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:18:09 +0100, "Ford, Mike" wrote:
>>
>>
>>> This is very true -- but XHTML requires *all* attributes to have a
>>> value, so an XHTML conformant page will use >> name="selector"> (or something similar such as >>
On 17 June 2009 22:05, Nisse Engström advised:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:18:09 +0100, "Ford, Mike" wrote:
>
>> This is very true -- but XHTML requires *all* attributes to have a
>> value, so an XHTML conformant page will use > name="selector"> (or something similar such as > name="selector">). The
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:59:36 -0400, tedd wrote:
> As I understand it and is my experience, that is
> true -- a stand-alone HTML attribute should be
> equal to itself, such as selected="selected", or
In HTML (as opposed to XHTML), there are a bunch of
shortcut features[1] that allow you to writ
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:51:55 +0100, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> I read somewhere that the XHTML standards say that for all attributes
> that would normally be standalone in HTML, they should be given a value
> that is the same as the attribute name, so you would use
> multiple="multiple", selected="s
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Ash:
As I understand it and is my experience, that is true -- a
stand-alone HTML attribute should be equal to itself, such as
selected="selected", or more specifically selected="SELECTED".
How is that MORE specific? XHTML is like a cross-se
Robert Cummings wrote:
Ash:
As I understand it and is my experience, that is true -- a stand-alone
HTML attribute should be equal to itself, such as selected="selected",
or more specifically selected="SELECTED".
How is that MORE specific? XHTML is like a cross-section of XML and
HTML. It i
tedd wrote:
At 10:51 PM +0100 6/17/09, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 23:05 +0200, Nisse Engström wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:18:09 +0100, "Ford, Mike" wrote:
> This is very true -- but XHTML requires *all* attributes to have a
> value, so an XHTML conformant page will use
Ford, Mike wrote:
On 17 June 2009 02:11, Shawn McKenzie advised:
PJ wrote:
I'm sorry, guys, but I am really getting po'd.
The irresponsible sloppiness and stupidity is just getting to me.
In my quest for a way to populate a multiple option select box I have
run across so many errors that it's
I don't know what validator you're using, but according to
http://validator.w3.org/ (as official as it gets) the following
fragment is correct in HTML 4.01, HTML 5, XHTML 1.0 Strict, and XHTML
1.1:
test
Thus sayeth the W3C, so let it be written, so let it be done. Go read
a tutorial on the t
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 18:59 -0400, tedd wrote:
> At 10:51 PM +0100 6/17/09, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> >On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 23:05 +0200, Nisse Engström wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:18:09 +0100, "Ford, Mike" wrote:
> >>
> >> > This is very true -- but XHTML requires *all* attributes to have
At 10:51 PM +0100 6/17/09, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 23:05 +0200, Nisse Engström wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:18:09 +0100, "Ford, Mike" wrote:
> This is very true -- but XHTML requires *all* attributes to have a
> value, so an XHTML conformant page will use name="selecto
Nisse Engström wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:18:09 +0100, "Ford, Mike" wrote:
>
>
>> This is very true -- but XHTML requires *all* attributes to have a
>> value, so an XHTML conformant page will use > name="selector"> (or something similar such as > name="selector">). The only inconsistency he
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 23:05 +0200, Nisse Engström wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:18:09 +0100, "Ford, Mike" wrote:
>
> > This is very true -- but XHTML requires *all* attributes to have a
> > value, so an XHTML conformant page will use > name="selector"> (or something similar such as > name="sel
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:18:09 +0100, "Ford, Mike" wrote:
> This is very true -- but XHTML requires *all* attributes to have a
> value, so an XHTML conformant page will use name="selector"> (or something similar such as name="selector">). The only inconsistency here is that different people
> have
On 17 June 2009 02:11, Shawn McKenzie advised:
> PJ wrote:
>> I'm sorry, guys, but I am really getting po'd.
>> The irresponsible sloppiness and stupidity is just getting to me.
>> In my quest for a way to populate a multiple option select box I have
>> run across so many errors that it's beyond b
> -Original Message-
> From: Shawn McKenzie [mailto:nos...@mckenzies.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 9:11 PM
> To: php-general@lists.php.net
> Subject: [PHP] Re: sloppiness & stupidity
>
> PJ wrote:
> > I'm sorry, guys, but I am really getting po
PJ wrote:
> I'm sorry, guys, but I am really getting po'd.
> The irresponsible sloppiness and stupidity is just getting to me.
> In my quest for a way to populate a multiple option select box I have
> run across so many errors that it's beyond belief... such nonsense as
> "select for select or sele
20 matches
Mail list logo
