Google| Subject | Re: Sandman still lying about his CSS |
| From | Steve Carroll |
| Date | 02/11/2017 19:23 (02/11/2017 10:23) |
| Message-ID | <d9848c4c-2574-4ba7-8cda-688de3f41a02@googlegroups.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Follows | Sandman |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 10:24:37 AM UTC-7, Sandman wrote:
SandmanTo save off him accusing you of some trickery or other here, anyone can see it validate by punching the file in question....
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In article <D4C48BB8.8F770%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:Sandman<http://web.archive.org/web/20060519191417/http://www.sandman.net>Snit
Are you claiming that on 20060519191417 the CSS Validation Service shows your CSS is valid?
What you snipped, because you can't respond to a reasoned post that contains facts: Here is the link to the WayBackMachine archive of my home page, with heavily edited HTML code by the WBM: <http://web.archive.org/web/20060519191417/http://www.sandman.net/> In the HTML, there is *one* link to a CSS files: <http://web.archive.org/web/20060509220758cs_/http://www.sandman.net/atlas/in clude/styles_plain.php> WBM has added a comment to the top of it, that's all. As opposed to the HTML output, the content remains just as it was back then. And when you run that file in a CSS validator: <https://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator? uri=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20060509220758cs_%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww sandman.net%2Fatlas%2Finclude%2Fstyles_plain.php&profile=css3&usermedium=all &warning=1&vextwarning=&lang=en> It is 100% valid.
<http://web.archive.org/web/20060509220758cs_/http://www.sandman.net/atlas/include/styles_plain.php>
... into the "Address" field here...
<https://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/>
My doing so resulted in the following screenshot:
<http://imgur.com/a/JWLGd>
02/08/2017-
