ping dorayme.....can you fix this problem?

D

Denis McMahon

As I have found out, if there are no other errors, the "&" error isn't even
mentioned.

45 25 <div class="mid2">Ike & Tina Turner<br />Sue 730</div>
xmlParseEntityRef: no name a
67 25 <div class="mid2">Ike & Tina Turner<br />Sue 730</div>
xmlParseEntityRef: no name

These were the only two errors reported.

Rgds

Denis McMahon
 
D

Denis McMahon


I'm validating a fixed version of his page on my own server, if I switch
the correct occurrences of "&amp;" back to his "&", I get errors.

I'm not posting the URL to the fixed page because I refuse to give him
the solution, he'd just break it somehow[1] and then it would all be my
fault[2].

Rgds

Denis McMahon

[1] i.e. he'd take a copy, edit it, insert some illegal combination of
elements, ignore or remove a required attribute, add some more "&"
characters etc.

[2] Then when it failed to validate he'd say it was my coding that
wasn't validating.
 
L

Lewis

In message said:
Now for you flamers, I know you will harass me over the fact that I use
inches instead of pixels for the blocks. So flame away, I'm not gonna
change it for you.

Neither inches nor pixels is correct when dealing with text.

I notice you didn't reply on the other thread when you were shown to not
have the foggiest idea what you talking about and were spreading
completely false information.
 
D

dorayme

Ed Mullen said:
Best ever comment/description in an answer in these groups - ever!

And I have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you not know what "egging the pudding" means? It is an English
expression meaning overdoing it. I just meant exaggerate.

Or do you not understand what Stamenkov was arguing and therefore
not know what my comment in reply meant?
 
T

Tim Streater

dorayme said:
Do you not know what "egging the pudding" means? It is an English
expression meaning overdoing it. I just meant exaggerate.

Or do you not understand what Stamenkov was arguing and therefore
not know what my comment in reply meant?

Hmmm, I thought it should be "over-egging the pudding". As in e.g.
"Don't over-egg it with that CSS!" :)
 
D

dorayme

Tim Streater said:
Hmmm, I thought it should be "over-egging the pudding". As in e.g.
"Don't over-egg it with that CSS!" :)

Yes, you are right! Having originally used "unnecessarily", I
seemed to shy from using "over". In reply to Ed, I was too quick.

Such substantial matters! <g>
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
474,077
Messages
2,570,566
Members
47,202
Latest member
misc.

Latest Threads

Top