Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.php > #17905
| From | "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.php |
| Subject | Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? |
| Date | 2019-04-26 12:31 +0200 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <q9umm6$16ja$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <q9rq6d$rf6$1@gioia.aioe.org> <gidbkjFol28U1@mid.individual.net> <gidmatFqspeU1@mid.individual.net> <q9uhsu$hd3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <gig0qcFbs0qU1@mid.individual.net> |
Arno, >> Great ! You now have (at least) /two/ tables, which means that >> alignment wise they can, and most likely will, look quite different >> from each other. >> I guess you didn't think that far ? > > Yes I did. I don't believe you. > I am very well aware of it. My example was just to demonstrate, > how *valid* HTML would look like. While fully ignoring if it would be usable to the OP. Man, you really are a piece of work. :-( > Feel free to show a better solution using valid HTML code Just after you show me a better solution /without/ using "valid HTML" (which I take you mean as W3 compliant). :-D Kiddo, are you daft or something ? Did you really just demand I should create something by *your* rules ? Even though we are quibbling about if those rules should actually be followed ? Really ? > And to avoid further meta discussions a bit of my background: I could not care less about who (you think) you are. Your explanation about your POV (whatever it might be) is much more valuable to me. And pardon me, but al you have been doing is telling me how that standar /must/ be followed while fully disregarding the practical side of it. > This is not a matter of personal taste or "theoretical approach". > HTML is a technical standard. You cannot even get yourself to name the beast by its name, can you ? Yes, the W3 papers constitute /a/ standard. Alas (for you) (each of) the browser makers have their own. Take a wild guess which I think is more important in day-to-day stuff (business). But, I'm going to end our conversation here. I don't think it will be beneficial to you, the OP or me to continue talking about our differences in approach. Goodbye. 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