Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.php > #17888
| From | "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.php |
| Subject | Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? |
| Date | 2019-04-25 12:08 +0200 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <q9s0vd$1og2$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | <f00fdd04-e13e-4aa8-98a6-43b8cdbbd996@googlegroups.com> <gid3upFn22bU1@mid.individual.net> <q9rq6e$rf6$2@gioia.aioe.org> <gidbbdFoj8aU1@mid.individual.net> |
Arno, > And I just confirmed his question with: "Yes, you should refactor > it to be valid HTML.". And how should he do that please ? Although I gave a suggestion to get rid of the nesting warning, you yourself mentioned its invalid HTML (is it?) to interleave a table and a forms that way ... > I recommended using a validator beacuse this clearly shows > which errors still exist. His IDE already seems to do validation - hence the nesting warning he got. And as you said, /how much/ it already does is currently unknown to you. > Best fit? What about comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html? Thats more like it. Next time try to do it /together with/ your "wrong newsgroup!" complaint. > Which is not valid either. <form> must not be a child of <table>. ... > It may be neccessary to do more refactoring than just moving tags > around. Yup. And somehow I don't think that that is his cup of tea. So, help him to fix his problems as he mentions them. Perfection is a nice secondary goal, but should not get in the way of creating something that works (on most, if not all browsers). Regards, Rudy Wieser
Back to comp.lang.php | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Dan Campbell <dcwhatthe@gmail.com> - 2019-04-24 07:30 -0700
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-25 08:55 +0200
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-25 10:12 +0200
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-25 11:01 +0200
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-25 12:08 +0200
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-25 13:59 +0200
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-25 16:13 +0200
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-25 16:56 +0200
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-04-25 08:05 -0400
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-26 10:53 +0200
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-26 11:14 +0200
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-26 11:59 +0200
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-26 12:08 +0200
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-05-29 19:20 +0200
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-25 09:49 +0200
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-25 11:06 +0200
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-25 14:09 +0200
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Dan Campbell <dcwhatthe@gmail.com> - 2019-04-25 05:32 -0700
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-26 11:20 +0200
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-26 11:31 +0200
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-26 11:09 +0200
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-26 11:20 +0200
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-26 11:24 +0200
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-26 12:31 +0200
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-26 13:34 +0200
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-26 13:36 +0200
Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2019-04-25 21:36 +0200
csiph-web