PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 09 July 2000 01:10
Subject: [Zope] SV: [Zope] "http://www.zope.org": HORRIBLE HTML
> Please, take a look at the errors the validator outputs before you post
messages like "Is Zope buggy..."
> Well you did at least draw
'm barking back, but after having looked at it closer, the
HTML is not bad at all.
Cheers, Peter
- Original Message -
From: Svante Kleist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 5:35 PM
Subject: [Zope] "http://www.zope.org": HORRIBL
Svante Kleist wrote:
>
> Has anybody tried to validate the Zope homepage? Like so:
[...]
> Is Zope buggy, producing HTML like this?
Right now, Zope.org tries to balance between IE users, NS 4.x users, and
emacs/text mode users.
Around the same time that NS 6 comes out, zope.org will be transiti
On Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 06:35:36PM +0200, Svante Kleist wrote:
> Has anybody tried to validate the Zope homepage? Like so:
>
> < URL: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zope.org%2F >
>
> My attention was drawn to this sad fact when I reported
> (was I thought was) a bug in Mozill
On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Svante Kleist wrote:
> Has anybody tried to validate the Zope homepage? Like so:
> < URL: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zope.org%2F >
I think this can be mostly attributed to the people who built zope.org. If
I validate some pretty plain standard page, I
nte Kleist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: "Svante.Kleist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 18:35:36 +0200
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Zope] "http://www.zope.org": HORRIBLE HTML
>
>
> Has anybody tried to validate the Zop
Has anybody tried to validate the Zope homepage? Like so:
< URL: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zope.org%2F >
My attention was drawn to this sad fact when I reported
(was I thought was) a bug in Mozilla:
< URL: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44757 >
Is Zope bu
