Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Arno Welzel Newsgroups: comp.lang.php Subject: Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 11:01:33 +0200 Lines: 55 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net rJQ5VWvDkmcZ0zyBf9ibggoHUWWJyXhD9NQHnBu0Tmo4dh51mq Cancel-Lock: sha1:kLNYOmigZVNgte/EnVzMhIQ9MuM= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.php:17886 On 25.04.19 10:12, R.Wieser wrote: > Dan is already busy refactoring the HTML. He does /not/ have to be told > again. Well - Dan asked: "Should I go ahead and refactor these forms, with properly nested tables?" And I just confirmed his question with: "Yes, you should refactor it to be valid HTML.". What's wrong with this answer? I believe Dan already knows *how* to do the refactoring. He was just not sure, if this is really neccessary since the browser seems not do have any problem with the invalid HTML code. > He also mentioned using a checker which complains about the nesting and the > reason why he's posting here, so he does /not/ need to be told to use such a > tool either. Well: "although my IDE complains (appropriately, imo) of nesting issues." Checking for nesting issues is *not* the same as *validating* the HTML. Even properly nested structures may still be *invalid* HTML. And as Dan is already working on that stuff, he should also validate the result properly. I don't know what IDE Dan is using nor do I know what kind of validation that IDE does. > What he /could/ use is some advice on /how/ to refactor - something thats > sorely lacking in your reply. Is it? I recommended using a validator beacuse this clearly shows which errors still exist. And I don't see any reason to explain all the basics of HTML from a to z and how to fix invalid code. > And he likely also knows that HTML is not the same as PHP, but chose this > newsgroup as the best fit. Giving your best "You're doing it WRONG!" Best fit? What about comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html? > impression without suggesting a better alternative doesn't help him much > either. > > Stepped outof bed with the wrong foot first maybe ? No. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de