Subject | Re: Sandman still lying about his CSS |
From | Snit |
Date | 02/11/2017 20:10 (02/11/2017 12:10) |
Message-ID | <D4C4AFA7.8F79E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | vallor (28m) > Snit Sandman (44m) > Snit |
Sandman<https://youtu.be/5OfWsoPAg7o>
-----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. Clearly exposing your eleven year long lie. This is a *fact*. A fact that you can't counter, can't respond to, can't meet in any way other than silence.