Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.php > #17886

Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs?

Show all headers | View raw

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

Back to comp.lang.php | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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