Subject | Re: Sandman still lying about his CSS |
From | Sandman |
Date | 02/09/2017 07:37 (02/09/2017 07:37) |
Message-ID | <sandman-ab81e7dad10b00d5cdabc3557016c0ff@individual.net> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
PGP | gpg: Signature made Thu Feb 9 07:37:42 2017 CET
gpg: using RSA key 2144C1F05A03E8D1
gpg: BAD signature from "Sandman |
Follows | Snit |
..of validation of the WBM *HTML*, not as my page was when you made the claim, and NOT from the date you made the claim, making your "support" anything but.SnitSnit was unable to counter this, so he ignored it, like he always does - he can't support his claims so he runs and hides.SnitSandman
This PDF gives direct links to the validation of every page:
..of the HTML presented by the WayBackMachine, not the HTML as it was on my homepage*ELEVEN YEARS AGO*.Here is a link to the *CSS* validating for my page on one of the dates you have used as "support" (which of course is *NOT* the date your claim is relevant to);That's for the date 2006-05-19, your claim was made on 2006-05-31
I showed EVERY date in the WBM (up to that point
What was noted is you have more than one CSS file tied to that page and you looked at only one.Lie #1
You also validated against a different standard than was the accepted one at the time.This was in 2006, CSS3 is from *1999*. Get with the program already. Just looking at the CSS would show you that it is shock-full of CSS3