CGI::Pretty breaking w3c validation

Discussion in 'Perl Misc' started by pdpi, Nov 11, 2005.

  1. pdpi

    pdpi Guest

    I have a curious problem.

    I'm using the following code to create a validation link for the XHTML
    I'm generating:

    print $cgi->a({href=>'http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer'},
    $cgi->img({src=>'http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-xhtml10',
    alt=>'Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict', height=>31,
    width=>88}));

    which works all nice and fine, and the XHTML passes with flying
    colours.

    Except that the XHTML CGI.pm generates is pretty unreadable, so figured
    adding a little

    use CGI::pretty;

    to it would be grand. But if I put that there, all of a sudden the
    <img> tag on that anchor there stops having a proper closing tag.
    Or, more accurately, instead of <img stuff=here />, the program now
    outputs <img stuff=here >, thus not closing the tag. Can anyone help?
    The documentation of CGI::pretty sure didn't, and googling clpmisc for
    CGI::pretty validation,
    CGI::pretty problems
    and other variations didn't give any hints.
    pdpi, Nov 11, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. pdpi wrote:
    > I have a curious problem.
    >
    > I'm using the following code to create a validation link for the XHTML
    > I'm generating:
    >
    > print $cgi->a({href=>'http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer'},
    > $cgi->img({src=>'http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-xhtml10',
    > alt=>'Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict', height=>31,
    > width=>88}));
    >
    > which works all nice and fine, and the XHTML passes with flying
    > colours.
    >
    > Except that the XHTML CGI.pm generates is pretty unreadable, so figured
    > adding a little
    >
    > use CGI::pretty;
    >
    > to it would be grand. But if I put that there, all of a sudden the
    > <img> tag on that anchor there stops having a proper closing tag.
    > Or, more accurately, instead of <img stuff=here />, the program now
    > outputs <img stuff=here >, thus not closing the tag. Can anyone help?
    > The documentation of CGI::pretty sure didn't, and googling clpmisc for
    > CGI::pretty validation,
    > CGI::pretty problems
    > and other variations didn't give any hints.


    Your problem is indeed curious.

    You know what output you want. Why are you struggling with not only one,
    but two modules to generate the output instead of just typing it?

    --
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson, Nov 11, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. pdpi

    John Bokma Guest

    Gunnar Hjalmarsson <> wrote:

    > You know what output you want. Why are you struggling with not only one,
    > but two modules to generate the output instead of just typing it?


    Moreover: what's the point of a valid XHTML button (I skip all the possible
    issues with using XHTML instead of HTML 4.01 strict). People who care about
    such things can validate your site by themselves. And how many people do
    care?

    --
    John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
    Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
    I ploink googlegroups.com :)
    John Bokma, Nov 11, 2005
    #3
  4. pdpi

    pdpi Guest


    > Gunnar Hjalmarsson <> wrote:
    > > You know what output you want. Why are you struggling with not only one,
    > > but two modules to generate the output instead of just typing it?


    because never in my programming life had I encountered incompatibility
    problems between two modules of a given language. And all prior
    evidence just pointed towards CGI::pretty being a pretty innocent thing
    to include. And lastly because I'd rather use a consistent style across
    the code if at all possible (and practical), so mixing explicit and
    CGI.pm-generated html is something I'd rather avoid. And finally
    because I'm a greedy bastard that enjoys gobbing as much information as
    possible all at once.

    John Bokma wrote:
    > Moreover: what's the point of a valid XHTML button (I skip all the possible
    > issues with using XHTML instead of HTML 4.01 strict). People who care about
    > such things can validate your site by themselves. And how many people do
    > care?


    well, regarding the XHTML vs HTML argument, CGI.pm generated XHTML 1.0
    Basic until I told it to make it strict. I figured XHTML would be as
    reasonable as HTML. And /someone/ must break the path. IE shows it
    right, so does firefox. When I get to my university tomorrow I'll check
    Konqueror. If the three arguably biggest rendering engines all deal
    with it nicely, AND it is standardized, everybody else can get a decent
    browser (and I do feel I have moral high-ground). Besides, this is a
    learning experience sort of thing, so I'm not (yet) much concerned with
    anyone else having problems with it being xhtml.

    HOWEVER, I do care for proper respect for standards. And I'd like to
    make people care. I might get people who don't yet care about that to
    visit. And that button stands out a bit. An explanation /somewhere/ of
    what it means, and voi la, some promotion for something I believe in.
    Also, for the people that care, a mere glance lets them know that I,
    too, care.
    Plus, I also believe in making things simple for everybody.
    pdpi, Nov 11, 2005
    #4
  5. pdpi

    John Bokma Guest

    "pdpi" <> wrote:

    >
    >> Gunnar Hjalmarsson <> wrote:
    >> > You know what output you want. Why are you struggling with not only
    >> > one, but two modules to generate the output instead of just typing
    >> > it?

    >
    > because never in my programming life had I encountered incompatibility
    > problems between two modules of a given language.


    Uhm, a very short programming life then :-D.

    > John Bokma wrote:
    >> Moreover: what's the point of a valid XHTML button (I skip all the
    >> possible issues with using XHTML instead of HTML 4.01 strict). People
    >> who care about such things can validate your site by themselves. And
    >> how many people do care?

    >
    > well, regarding the XHTML vs HTML argument, CGI.pm generated XHTML 1.0
    > Basic until I told it to make it strict.


    Yes, I consider that a design flaw in CGI.pm. Has been discussed a lot
    here, is not going to change (sadly).

    > I figured XHTML would be as
    > reasonable as HTML.


    <http://codinginparadise.org/weblog/2005/08/xhtml-considered-
    harmful.html>
    <http://keystonewebsites.com/articles/mime_type.php>

    > And /someone/ must break the path.


    What does XHTML add over HTML 4.01 strict?

    > IE shows it
    > right, so does firefox.


    That doesn't say much, really. I can hack up a page that is really badly
    coded in HTML and both IE and Firefox will show it right, doesn't make
    it right.

    > When I get to my university tomorrow I'll
    > check Konqueror. If the three arguably biggest rendering engines all
    > deal with it nicely, AND it is standardized,


    XHTML is not a standard. ISO HTML is (but has other issues).

    > everybody else can get a
    > decent browser (and I do feel I have moral high-ground). Besides, this
    > is a learning experience sort of thing, so I'm not (yet) much
    > concerned with anyone else having problems with it being xhtml.


    But I guess you also want to learn why you probably should not use
    XHTML.

    > HOWEVER, I do care for proper respect for standards.


    Then you have to switch to ISO HTML.

    > And I'd like to
    > make people care. I might get people who don't yet care about that to
    > visit. And that button stands out a bit.


    Like I said: people who care if your page is valid, know how to validate
    it. The rest (majority) doesn't care.

    > An explanation /somewhere/ of
    > what it means, and voi la, some promotion for something I believe in.


    But you can't explain why XHTML is better, or maybe not...

    > Also, for the people that care, a mere glance lets them know that I,
    > too, care.


    But your cause might be a wrong one. Why do "we" need XHTML?

    > Plus, I also believe in making things simple for everybody.


    I think that would mean removing the XML validation button thingy :-D.

    --
    John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
    Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
    I ploink googlegroups.com :)
    John Bokma, Nov 11, 2005
    #5
  6. pdpi

    Guest

    John Bokma <> wrote:
    > Gunnar Hjalmarsson <> wrote:


    >> You know what output you want. Why are you struggling with not only one,
    >> but two modules to generate the output instead of just typing it?


    > Moreover: what's the point of a valid XHTML button (I skip all the possible
    > issues with using XHTML instead of HTML 4.01 strict). People who care about
    > such things can validate your site by themselves. And how many people do
    > care?


    I thought about this... maybe two reasons... (i) that if the link is correctly
    set up, a validation report can be made for the author very easily; (ii) if
    he is looking for a job, then prospective employers can see and check his code.

    I have such tags on my website for reason i.

    Axel
    , Nov 11, 2005
    #6
  7. pdpi wrote:
    >>Gunnar Hjalmarsson <> wrote:
    >>>You know what output you want. Why are you struggling with not only one,
    >>>but two modules to generate the output instead of just typing it?

    >
    > because I'd rather use a consistent style across
    > the code if at all possible (and practical), so mixing explicit and
    > CGI.pm-generated html is something I'd rather avoid.


    Okay... I have to admit that I usually don't use CGI.pm to genererate
    HTML in the first place. :)

    --
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson, Nov 11, 2005
    #7
  8. pdpi

    John Bokma Guest

    wrote:

    > John Bokma <> wrote:
    >> Gunnar Hjalmarsson <> wrote:

    >
    >>> You know what output you want. Why are you struggling with not only
    >>> one, but two modules to generate the output instead of just typing
    >>> it?

    >
    >> Moreover: what's the point of a valid XHTML button (I skip all the
    >> possible issues with using XHTML instead of HTML 4.01 strict). People
    >> who care about such things can validate your site by themselves. And
    >> how many people do care?

    >
    > I thought about this... maybe two reasons... (i) that if the link is
    > correctly set up, a validation report can be made for the author very
    > easily; (ii) if he is looking for a job, then prospective employers
    > can see and check his code.
    >
    > I have such tags on my website for reason i.


    I don't need (i) because as a "lazy" programmer I have a script that makes
    it even easier.

    (ii) I doubt that they need a button, I mean, then I can add a bunch more:

    Site made with [XML] in [TextPad], converted to valid [HTML 4.01 strict],
    using [Perl] and [XML::Twig] downloaded from [CPAN]. Graphics made with
    [CorelXara].. etc.

    On a page itself, ok, but not as a footer on every page :-D.


    --
    John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
    Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
    I ploink googlegroups.com :)
    John Bokma, Nov 11, 2005
    #8
  9. John Bokma <> wrote in
    news:Xns970BA3710491Dcastleamber@130.133.1.4:

    > wrote:
    >
    >> John Bokma <> wrote:
    >>> Gunnar Hjalmarsson <> wrote:

    >>

    ....
    >> I thought about this... maybe two reasons... (i) that if the link is
    >> correctly set up, a validation report can be made for the author very
    >> easily; (ii) if he is looking for a job, then prospective employers
    >> can see and check his code.
    >>
    >> I have such tags on my website for reason i.

    >
    > I don't need (i) because as a "lazy" programmer I have a script that
    > makes it even easier.


    Hmmm ... I would have thought the ultimate act of laziness would be to
    install the web developer extension for Firefox.

    Sinan
    --
    A. Sinan Unur <>
    (reverse each component and remove .invalid for email address)

    comp.lang.perl.misc guidelines on the WWW:
    http://mail.augustmail.com/~tadmc/clpmisc/clpmisc_guidelines.html
    A. Sinan Unur, Nov 11, 2005
    #9
  10. pdpi

    John Bokma Guest

    "A. Sinan Unur" <> wrote:

    > John Bokma <> wrote in
    > news:Xns970BA3710491Dcastleamber@130.133.1.4:
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> John Bokma <> wrote:
    >>>> Gunnar Hjalmarsson <> wrote:
    >>>

    > ...
    >>> I thought about this... maybe two reasons... (i) that if the link is
    >>> correctly set up, a validation report can be made for the author very
    >>> easily; (ii) if he is looking for a job, then prospective employers
    >>> can see and check his code.
    >>>
    >>> I have such tags on my website for reason i.

    >>
    >> I don't need (i) because as a "lazy" programmer I have a script that
    >> makes it even easier.

    >
    > Hmmm ... I would have thought the ultimate act of laziness would be to
    > install the web developer extension for Firefox.


    Nah, I run my own script which walks over all my HTML files, and validates
    them, and only complains when it finds a bad page. Since I generate my
    pages from XML I often trust into that process, and don't validate often.

    --
    John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
    Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
    I ploink googlegroups.com :)
    John Bokma, Nov 11, 2005
    #10
  11. pdpi

    pdpi Guest

    OK, time for a mass answer.

    John Bokma wrote:
    > Uhm, a very short programming life then :-D.


    Well, 10 years and counting. But I haven't stuck to any one language
    long enough for that sort of stuff to crop up. Except with Mathematica
    (which I've been using extensively for a certain and very restricted
    sort of programming for the last 4 years), which seems mostly immune to
    it.


    > > I figured XHTML would be as
    > > reasonable as HTML.

    >
    > <http://codinginparadise.org/weblog/2005/08/xhtml-considered-
    > harmful.html>
    > <http://keystonewebsites.com/articles/mime_type.php>


    well, those chaps make some interesting points.

    > What does XHTML add over HTML 4.01 strict?


    Good question. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> at the begining
    springs to mind. Future proofing was what I had in mind. Apparently
    ill-foundedly.



    >
    > > When I get to my university tomorrow I'll
    > > check Konqueror. If the three arguably biggest rendering engines all
    > > deal with it nicely, AND it is standardized,

    >
    > XHTML is not a standard. ISO HTML is (but has other issues).


    OK, that's a very important point. Care to point me towards some
    article on the subject?

    > > everybody else can get a
    > > decent browser (and I do feel I have moral high-ground). Besides, this
    > > is a learning experience sort of thing, so I'm not (yet) much
    > > concerned with anyone else having problems with it being xhtml.

    >
    > But I guess you also want to learn why you probably should not use
    > XHTML.
    >


    you had me at "XHTML is not a standard" :)

    > > HOWEVER, I do care for proper respect for standards.

    >
    > Then you have to switch to ISO HTML.
    >


    see above.

    (this one is out of order, but makes replying simpler)
    > That doesn't say much, really. I can hack up a page that is really badly
    > coded in HTML and both IE and Firefox will show it right, doesn't make
    > it right.


    Well, I was working under the assumption XHTML was a proper,
    independently recognized, standard. My comment regarding IE and Firefox
    rendering it just fine leaned heavily on that. IE still has 85%+ of the
    market, yet you won't find me using IE-only stuff that (obviously)
    renders just right there.


    > But you can't explain why XHTML is better, or maybe not...


    No I can't, not really. Seems the buzzword monster had me for a while.

    > > Plus, I also believe in making things simple for everybody.

    >
    > I think that would mean removing the XML validation button thingy :-D.



    Nah. It'll just be HTML 4.01 instead by sometime tomorrow :p

    Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    > > because I'd rather use a consistent style across
    > > the code if at all possible (and practical), so mixing explicit and
    > > CGI.pm-generated html is something I'd rather avoid.

    >
    > Okay... I have to admit that I usually don't use CGI.pm to genererate
    > HTML in the first place. :)


    Starting to think I shouldn't, either. Makes for really cluttered code.

    John Bokma wrote:
    > I don't need (i) because as a "lazy" programmer I have a script that makes
    > it even easier.
    >
    > (ii) I doubt that they need a button, I mean, then I can add a bunch more:
    >
    > Site made with [XML] in [TextPad], converted to valid [HTML 4.01 strict],
    > using [Perl] and [XML::Twig] downloaded from [CPAN]. Graphics made with
    > [CorelXara].. etc.
    >
    > On a page itself, ok, but not as a footer on every page :-D.


    on (i), alter code, refresh browser, middle click the little button.
    Seems pretty effective to me. on (ii), that as well.
    pdpi, Nov 12, 2005
    #11
  12. pdpi

    John Bokma Guest

    "pdpi" <> wrote:

    > OK, time for a mass answer.
    >
    > John Bokma wrote:
    >> Uhm, a very short programming life then :-D.

    >
    > Well, 10 years and counting. But I haven't stuck to any one language
    > long enough for that sort of stuff to crop up. Except with Mathematica
    > (which I've been using extensively for a certain and very restricted
    > sort of programming for the last 4 years), which seems mostly immune
    > to it.


    Well, I often have seen modules not cooperating :) Or dynamically
    loaded libraries breaking things :) Recently, I upgraded a Perl module,
    and my program fell apart. Still no idea why, I just use the old module
    for now.

    > Good question. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> at the begining
    > springs to mind. Future proofing was what I had in mind. Apparently
    > ill-foundedly.


    Don't worry, I know because I once used XHTML on my site because I
    thought XHTML had advantages and got a similar reply as I just gave.

    >> XHTML is not a standard. ISO HTML is (but has other issues).

    >
    > OK, that's a very important point. Care to point me towards some
    > article on the subject?


    A common misunderstanding is that w3c makes standards. Technically they
    make recommendations, working drafts etc. Standards come from
    organizations like ISO, ECMA. ISO has a HTML standard, but it has also
    some issues, for me the most important one is that an img element no
    longer can have height and width attributes.

    The whole standard v.s. recommendations sounds like nitpicking, but if
    you ask in a html related group your question might be ignored and a
    long winded "not standards" discussion might be the result :-D

    [ snip ]
    > Well, I was working under the assumption XHTML was a proper,
    > independently recognized, standard. My comment regarding IE and
    > Firefox rendering it just fine leaned heavily on that. IE still has
    > 85%+ of the market, yet you won't find me using IE-only stuff that
    > (obviously) renders just right there.


    If I recall correctly, some versions of IE have problems with the <?xml
    ...> header on top. There are work arounds (IIRC), etc. But they are not
    nice (again IIRC)

    >> But you can't explain why XHTML is better, or maybe not...

    >
    > No I can't, not really. Seems the buzzword monster had me for a while.


    Don't worry, had me too, and I got a similar reply like I am writing now
    :)

    Gunnar Hjalmarsson = >>
    >> Okay... I have to admit that I usually don't use CGI.pm to genererate
    >> HTML in the first place. :)

    >
    > Starting to think I shouldn't, either. Makes for really cluttered
    > code.


    But otherwise, be aware that CGI.pm defaults to XHTML :)

    John Bokma = >>
    >> I don't need (i) because as a "lazy" programmer I have a script that
    >> makes it even easier.
    >>
    >> (ii) I doubt that they need a button, I mean, then I can add a bunch
    >> more:
    >>
    >> Site made with [XML] in [TextPad], converted to valid [HTML 4.01
    >> strict], using [Perl] and [XML::Twig] downloaded from [CPAN].
    >> Graphics made with [CorelXara].. etc.
    >>
    >> On a page itself, ok, but not as a footer on every page :-D.

    >
    > on (i), alter code, refresh browser, middle click the little button.
    > Seems pretty effective to me.


    type v tab return and have another cup of coffee works for me :) Note
    that I generate my pages from XML, so I am most of the time quite sure
    that the output is valid.


    --
    John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
    Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
    I ploink googlegroups.com :)
    John Bokma, Nov 12, 2005
    #12
  13. On 11 Nov 2005 05:50:03 GMT, in comp.lang.perl.misc , John Bokma
    <> in <Xns970AF2733797Bcastleamber@130.133.1.4>
    wrote:

    >"pdpi" <> wrote:


    [snip]

    >> I figured XHTML would be as
    >> reasonable as HTML.

    >
    ><http://codinginparadise.org/weblog/2005/08/xhtml-considered-harmful.html>


    I just took a look at that and I have to disagree with "3. Custom
    attributes are sinful". Custom attributes, at least how he shows them,
    are a way of putting data into mark-up. That sure looks to me like a
    bad idea, particularly when there is an attempt to separate data from
    markup from presentation.

    [snip]

    --
    Matt Silberstein

    Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

    http://www.beawitness.org
    http://www.darfurgenocide.org
    http://www.savedarfur.org

    "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
    Matt Silberstein, Nov 12, 2005
    #13
  14. pdpi

    Matt Garrish Guest

    "John Bokma" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns970BEC4CBB58Dcastleamber@130.133.1.4...
    >
    > A common misunderstanding is that w3c makes standards. Technically they
    > make recommendations, working drafts etc. Standards come from
    > organizations like ISO, ECMA. ISO has a HTML standard, but it has also
    > some issues, for me the most important one is that an img element no
    > longer can have height and width attributes.
    >


    Let's put a bullet in ISO-HTML:

    <quote https://www.cs.tcd.ie/15445/UG.html#HEAD>
    Scripting is not yet considered to be sufficiently stable and mature to be
    included in an International Standard, so the <HEAD> [W3C 7.4.1] element
    content model does not include the <SCRIPT> [W3C 18.2.1] element.
    </quote>

    Now there's a half-assed way of making a standard!

    Matt
    Matt Garrish, Nov 12, 2005
    #14
  15. pdpi

    John Bokma Guest

    "Matt Garrish" <> wrote:

    >
    > "John Bokma" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns970BEC4CBB58Dcastleamber@130.133.1.4...
    >>
    >> A common misunderstanding is that w3c makes standards. Technically
    >> they make recommendations, working drafts etc. Standards come from
    >> organizations like ISO, ECMA. ISO has a HTML standard, but it has
    >> also some issues, for me the most important one is that an img
    >> element no longer can have height and width attributes.
    >>

    >
    > Let's put a bullet in ISO-HTML:
    >
    > <quote https://www.cs.tcd.ie/15445/UG.html#HEAD>
    > Scripting is not yet considered to be sufficiently stable and mature
    > to be included in an International Standard, so the <HEAD> [W3C 7.4.1]
    > element content model does not include the <SCRIPT> [W3C 18.2.1]
    > element. </quote>
    >
    > Now there's a half-assed way of making a standard!


    Why? There are still differences between JavaScript implementations. Yes,
    there is an ECMA standard, which is a subset.

    Yesterday I had a peek at Ajax, and the first thing that's needed is
    sniffing how to get the XML data...


    --
    John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
    Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
    I ploink googlegroups.com :)
    John Bokma, Nov 13, 2005
    #15
  16. pdpi

    Matt Garrish Guest

    "John Bokma" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns970CC1E7CC447castleamber@130.133.1.4...
    > "Matt Garrish" <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "John Bokma" <> wrote in message
    >> news:Xns970BEC4CBB58Dcastleamber@130.133.1.4...
    >>>
    >>> A common misunderstanding is that w3c makes standards. Technically
    >>> they make recommendations, working drafts etc. Standards come from
    >>> organizations like ISO, ECMA. ISO has a HTML standard, but it has
    >>> also some issues, for me the most important one is that an img
    >>> element no longer can have height and width attributes.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Let's put a bullet in ISO-HTML:
    >>
    >> <quote https://www.cs.tcd.ie/15445/UG.html#HEAD>
    >> Scripting is not yet considered to be sufficiently stable and mature
    >> to be included in an International Standard, so the <HEAD> [W3C 7.4.1]
    >> element content model does not include the <SCRIPT> [W3C 18.2.1]
    >> element. </quote>
    >>
    >> Now there's a half-assed way of making a standard!

    >
    > Why? There are still differences between JavaScript implementations. Yes,
    > there is an ECMA standard, which is a subset.
    >


    What difference does that make? I fail to see how any differences in
    javascript invalidate the use of a <script> tag in a header (or anywhere
    else). Their job is not to define the scripting language in this spec, but
    the tags that can be used.

    Maybe you don't understand the full implication of this arbitrary judgement
    call, which is that in "ISO-HTML" you cannot include *any* scripting. That
    alone invalidates it for everything but the most trivial of sites.

    Matt
    Matt Garrish, Nov 13, 2005
    #16
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Frank
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,566
    David Dorward
    May 3, 2004
  2. Amy
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    505
  3. Jeff Dickens

    CGI.pretty and textarea

    Jeff Dickens, Dec 7, 2003, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    128
    Jeff Dickens
    Dec 7, 2003
  4. Jeremy Henty
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    256
    Uri Guttman
    Feb 22, 2007
  5. Marc Llenas

    Problem with pretty simple validation

    Marc Llenas, Oct 10, 2005, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    99
    Marc Llenas
    Oct 11, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page