CSS validator

Discussion in 'HTML' started by fuli open, Feb 1, 2007.

  1. fuli open

    fuli open Guest

    I started to run the CSS validator on my files, and correct mistakes
    until getting the message of 'Congratulations'. But for one file I
    got the following message:

    quote
    W3C CSS Validator Results for http://www.pinyinology.com/wheel/
    fortune.html

    No error or warning found

    No style sheet found
    unquote

    the URL is: http://www.pinyinology.com/wheel/fortune.html

    It is possible that there is not error or warning. But there is a
    very long style sheet. I wonder whether the validator itself made a
    mistake. It found my file, but didn't do anything.

    Help is appreciated.
    fuli open
     
    fuli open, Feb 1, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. fuli open

    J.O. Aho Guest

    fuli open wrote:
    > I started to run the CSS validator on my files, and correct mistakes
    > until getting the message of 'Congratulations'. But for one file I
    > got the following message:
    >
    > quote
    > W3C CSS Validator Results for http://www.pinyinology.com/wheel/
    > fortune.html
    >
    > No error or warning found
    >
    > No style sheet found
    > unquote
    >
    > the URL is: http://www.pinyinology.com/wheel/fortune.html
    >
    > It is possible that there is not error or warning. But there is a
    > very long style sheet. I wonder whether the validator itself made a
    > mistake. It found my file, but didn't do anything.


    Could be so that the validator assumes your page is HTML4.01 and the xhtml you
    are using makes it to miss the style definitions.

    Either use:

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

    or

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

    or

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

    --

    //Aho
     
    J.O. Aho, Feb 1, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. fuli open wrote:
    > I started to run the CSS validator on my files, and correct mistakes
    > until getting the message of 'Congratulations'. But for one file I
    > got the following message:
    >
    > quote
    > W3C CSS Validator Results for http://www.pinyinology.com/wheel/
    > fortune.html
    >
    > No error or warning found
    >
    > No style sheet found
    > unquote
    >
    > the URL is: http://www.pinyinology.com/wheel/fortune.html
    >
    > It is possible that there is not error or warning. But there is a
    > very long style sheet. I wonder whether the validator itself made a
    > mistake. It found my file, but didn't do anything.
    >


    Your style definitions are within STYLE element, typically it is in a
    separate sheet

    <head>
    <link rel="stylesheet" href="yourStyleSheet.css" type="text/css">
    ....

    I believe the warning means that the validator can find no external sheet.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Feb 1, 2007
    #3
  4. fuli open

    fuli open Guest

    On Feb 1, 7:56 am, "J.O. Aho" <> wrote:
    > fuli open wrote:


    > Could be so that the validator assumes your page is HTML4.01 and the xhtml you
    > are using makes it to miss the style definitions.
    >
    > Either use:
    >
    > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">


    I have been doing in my way for years without realizing the difference
    between xhtml and html4. It's rather hard for me do otherwise. Is it
    possible to change the word 'Strict' to 'Transtional' in above doctype
    and add a line in the <html> tag, so the above would become:

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

    <html xmlns="http//www.w3.org/1999/xhml">

    </html>

    > or
    >
    > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
    >
    > or
    >
    > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">


    If xhml things are already included in the code, I wonder whether the
    above two doctypes are adequate for my page.

    Thanks a lot again for enlightenment.
    >
    > --
    >
    > //Aho
     
    fuli open, Feb 1, 2007
    #4
  5. fuli open

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Feb 1, 6:40 am, "fuli open" <> wrote:
    > I started to run the CSS validator on my files, and correct mistakes
    > until getting the message of 'Congratulations'. But for one file I
    > got the following message:
    >
    > quote
    > W3C CSS Validator Results forhttp://www.pinyinology.com/wheel/
    > fortune.html
    >
    > No error or warning found
    >
    > No style sheet found
    > unquote
    >
    > the URL is:http://www.pinyinology.com/wheel/fortune.html
    >
    > It is possible that there is not error or warning. But there is a
    > very long style sheet. I wonder whether the validator itself made a
    > mistake. It found my file, but didn't do anything.
    >
    > Help is appreciated.
    > fuli open


    Your page has 49 validation errors as written in XHTML. However, when
    you go to the CSS validator, a line just under the URL form states:
    "Note: If you want to validate your CSS style sheet embedded in an
    (X)HTML document, you should first check that the (X)HTML you use is
    valid." Thus you have two choices. Either you correct all of the
    errors in the xhtml page or change the page to another format, such as
    html 4.01 strict, and get it to validate fully. Then the CSS validator
    should work. If the CSS validator still will not work, you should then
    check your CSS for typos, etc. If the CSS validator still will not
    work, then the W3C has a feedback link for reporting bugs.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Feb 1, 2007
    #5
  6. fuli open

    J.O. Aho Guest

    fuli open wrote:
    > On Feb 1, 7:56 am, "J.O. Aho" <> wrote:


    > I have been doing in my way for years without realizing the difference
    > between xhtml and html4. It's rather hard for me do otherwise. Is it
    > possible to change the word 'Strict' to 'Transtional' in above doctype
    > and add a line in the <html> tag, so the above would become:


    You get a bit of randomness when you don't use a doctype, and if you use a
    html-doctype and xhtml-tags, you get randomness too.


    > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">


    Sure, that works.


    >> or
    >>
    >> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    >> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
    >>
    >> or
    >>
    >> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    >> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

    >
    > If xhml things are already included in the code, I wonder whether the
    > above two doctypes are adequate for my page.


    You can always remove xhtml and use pure html, if you want to use a html-doctype.


    --

    //Aho
     
    J.O. Aho, Feb 1, 2007
    #6
  7. fuli open

    Roy A. Guest

    On 1 Feb, 15:22, "fuli open" <> wrote:
    > On Feb 1, 7:56 am, "J.O. Aho" <> wrote:
    >
    > > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    > > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

    >
    > > or

    >
    > > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    > > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

    >
    > If xhml things are already included in the code, I wonder whether the
    > above two doctypes are adequate for my page.


    I think an HTML 4.01 doctype is more adequate for your page than
    xhtml.

    Your pages is rendering in backwards compatibility mode. If you don't
    want to change that (in your existing pages) you could use:

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">

    But try to see if you can use standards mode.
     
    Roy A., Feb 1, 2007
    #7
  8. fuli open

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    "J.O. Aho" <> wrote:

    > fuli open wrote:
    > > On Feb 1, 7:56 am, "J.O. Aho" <> wrote:

    >
    > > I have been doing in my way for years without realizing the difference
    > > between xhtml and html4. It's rather hard for me do otherwise. Is it
    > > possible to change the word 'Strict' to 'Trans ...


    > You can always remove xhtml and use pure html, if you want to use a
    > html-doctype.


    Before doing anything, note the wise words of my partner, old K:

    "The expert advice is to use HTML 4.01, but you can of course use
    technobabble-XHTML _if_ you are careful enough to follow
    guidelines that effectively make it HTML 4.01 with pointless
    kludges."

    Not bad really!

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Feb 1, 2007
    #8
  9. fuli open

    Roy A. Guest

    On 1 Feb, 22:04, dorayme <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > "J.O. Aho" <> wrote:
    >
    > > fuli open wrote:
    > > > On Feb 1, 7:56 am, "J.O. Aho" <> wrote:

    >
    > > > I have been doing in my way for years without realizing the difference
    > > > between xhtml and html4. It's rather hard for me do otherwise. Is it
    > > > possible to change the word 'Strict' to 'Trans ...

    > > You can always remove xhtml and use pure html, if you want to use a
    > > html-doctype.

    >
    > Before doing anything, note the wise words of my partner, old K:
    >
    > "The expert advice is to use HTML 4.01, but you can of course use
    > technobabble-XHTML _if_ you are careful enough to follow
    > guidelines that effectively make it HTML 4.01 with pointless
    > kludges."
    >
    > Not bad really!


    Not bad, but she/he is merely annotating her/his own imagination.
     
    Roy A., Feb 1, 2007
    #9
  10. fuli open

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    "Roy A." <> wrote:

    > On 1 Feb, 22:04, dorayme <> wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > "J.O. Aho" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > fuli open wrote:
    > > > > On Feb 1, 7:56 am, "J.O. Aho" <> wrote:

    > >
    > > > > I have been doing in my way for years without realizing the difference
    > > > > between xhtml and html4. It's rather hard for me do otherwise. Is it
    > > > > possible to change the word 'Strict' to 'Trans ...
    > > > You can always remove xhtml and use pure html, if you want to use a
    > > > html-doctype.

    > >
    > > Before doing anything, note the wise words of my partner, old K:
    > >
    > > "The expert advice is to use HTML 4.01, but you can of course use
    > > technobabble-XHTML _if_ you are careful enough to follow
    > > guidelines that effectively make it HTML 4.01 with pointless
    > > kludges."
    > >
    > > Not bad really!

    >
    > Not bad, but she/he is merely annotating her/his own imagination.


    No, your "merely" makes it false.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Feb 1, 2007
    #10
  11. fuli open

    fuli open Guest

    On Feb 1, 5:17 pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    > "Roy A." <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On 1 Feb, 22:04, dorayme <> wrote:
    > > > In article <>,
    > > > "J.O. Aho" <> wrote:

    >
    > > > > fuli open wrote:
    > > > > > On Feb 1, 7:56 am, "J.O. Aho" <> wrote:

    >
    > > > > > I have been doing in my way for years without realizing the difference
    > > > > > between xhtml and html4. It's rather hard for me do otherwise. Is it
    > > > > > possible to change the word 'Strict' to 'Trans ...
    > > > > You can always remove xhtml and use pure html, if you want to use a
    > > > > html-doctype.

    >
    > > > Before doing anything, note the wise words of my partner, old K:

    >
    > > > "The expert advice is to use HTML 4.01, but you can of course use
    > > > technobabble-XHTML _if_ you are careful enough to follow
    > > > guidelines that effectively make it HTML 4.01 with pointless
    > > > kludges."

    >
    > > > Not bad really!

    >
    > > Not bad, but she/he is merely annotating her/his own imagination.

    >
    > No, your "merely" makes it false.
    >
    > --
    > dorayme- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Many thanks to all of you for your advice. I would like to go with
    either xhtml or html 4.01. The books I've read always say (x)html. So
    I think they are same. Could anyone further advise me on the
    difference between the two languages, so I can always stay with one.
    Or you can recommend a book.

    Also, which language do html professionals like better, xhtml or html
    4.01? As an amateur, following suit is the best policy.

    Thanks again.
     
    fuli open, Feb 2, 2007
    #11
  12. fuli open wrote:
    <snip>
    > Also, which language do html professionals like better, xhtml or html
    > 4.01? As an amateur, following suit is the best policy.


    Briefly, use 4.01 Strict. Without meaning to sound snide here, if you
    don't know the difference between XHTML and HTML you don't need XHTML.
    XHTML has features that average web designer does not use|need and MSIE
    has problems with properly delivered XHTML...


    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Feb 2, 2007
    #12
  13. Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    > fuli open wrote:
    ><snip>
    >> Also, which language do html professionals like better, xhtml or html
    >> 4.01? As an amateur, following suit is the best policy.

    >
    > Briefly, use 4.01 Strict. Without meaning to sound snide here, if you
    > don't know the difference between XHTML and HTML you don't need XHTML.
    > XHTML has features that average web designer does not use|need and MSIE
    > has problems with properly delivered XHTML...


    Still, with OE7?

    --
    Blinky RLU 297263
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Feb 2, 2007
    #13
  14. Blinky the Shark wrote:
    > Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >> fuli open wrote:
    >> <snip>
    >>> Also, which language do html professionals like better, xhtml or html
    >>> 4.01? As an amateur, following suit is the best policy.

    >> Briefly, use 4.01 Strict. Without meaning to sound snide here, if you
    >> don't know the difference between XHTML and HTML you don't need XHTML.
    >> XHTML has features that average web designer does not use|need and MSIE
    >> has problems with properly delivered XHTML...

    >
    > Still, with OE7?
    >

    Who knows! I'm happy with Win2000!

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Feb 2, 2007
    #14
  15. fuli open

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    "fuli open" <> wrote:

    > On Feb 1, 5:17 pm, dorayme <> wrote:


    > > > > "The expert advice is to use HTML 4.01, but you can of course use
    > > > > technobabble-XHTML _if_ you are careful enough to follow
    > > > > guidelines that effectively make it HTML 4.01 with pointless
    > > > > kludges."


    >
    > Also, which language do html professionals like better, xhtml or html
    > 4.01? As an amateur, following suit is the best policy.


    Just use HTML 4.01.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Feb 2, 2007
    #15
  16. fuli open

    fuli open Guest

    On Feb 2, 3:40 pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    > "fuli open" <> wrote:
    >
    > > On Feb 1, 5:17 pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    > > > > > "The expert advice is to use HTML 4.01, but you can of course use
    > > > > > technobabble-XHTML _if_ you are careful enough to follow
    > > > > > guidelines that effectively make it HTML 4.01 with pointless
    > > > > > kludges."

    >
    > > Also, which language do html professionals like better, xhtml or html
    > > 4.01? As an amateur, following suit is the best policy.

    >
    > Just use HTML 4.01.


    I tested my home page with html 4 strict on the html validator, and
    was told as follows:

    quote
    No Character Encoding Found! Falling back to UTF-8.

    This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!
    unquote

    In fact, I tested all the three headings, xhtml, html transitional and
    html strict, but was told that my page was not valid any. And if the
    page is not valid for any heading, do I still need to put a heading
    there? Will the heading hurt the page?

    The URL of the tested page is: www.pinyinology.com

    Thanks for help.
    fuli open

    >
    > --
    > dorayme
     
    fuli open, Feb 3, 2007
    #16
  17. Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    > Blinky the Shark wrote:
    >> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >>> fuli open wrote:
    >>> <snip>
    >>>> Also, which language do html professionals like better, xhtml or html
    >>>> 4.01? As an amateur, following suit is the best policy.
    >>> Briefly, use 4.01 Strict. Without meaning to sound snide here, if you
    >>> don't know the difference between XHTML and HTML you don't need XHTML.
    >>> XHTML has features that average web designer does not use|need and MSIE
    >>> has problems with properly delivered XHTML...

    >>
    >> Still, with OE7?
    >>

    > Who knows! I'm happy with Win2000!


    That's what I'm using on my secondary box. And not as a matter of
    legacy, either. A clean install from a non-upgrade W2K disk I picked up
    last year.


    --
    Blinky RLU 297263
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Feb 3, 2007
    #17
  18. fuli open wrote:

    > In fact, I tested all the three headings, xhtml, html transitional and
    > html strict, but was told that my page was not valid any.


    In order to be 'valid' you have to fix the errors. Your page has many of
    them, no matter what doctype you choose. Or even if you don't.

    > And if the page is not valid for any heading, do I still need to put a
    > heading there?


    Depends on whether or not you intend to fix the errors.

    Use HTML 4.01 Strict.

    > Will the heading hurt the page?


    No. The damage was already done. <g>

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Feb 3, 2007
    #18
  19. fuli open

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    "fuli open" <> wrote:

    > On Feb 2, 3:40 pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    > > In article
    > > <>,
    > > "fuli open" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > On Feb 1, 5:17 pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    > > > > > > "The expert advice is to use HTML 4.01, but you can of course use
    > > > > > > technobabble-XHTML _if_ you are careful enough to follow
    > > > > > > guidelines that effectively make it HTML 4.01 with pointless
    > > > > > > kludges."

    > >
    > > > Also, which language do html professionals like better, xhtml or html
    > > > 4.01? As an amateur, following suit is the best policy.

    > >
    > > Just use HTML 4.01.

    >
    > I tested my home page with html 4 strict on the html validator, and
    > was told as follows:
    >
    > quote
    > No Character Encoding Found! Falling back to UTF-8.
    >
    > This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!
    > unquote
    >
    > In fact, I tested all the three headings, xhtml, html transitional and
    > html strict, but was told that my page was not valid any. And if the
    > page is not valid for any heading, do I still need to put a heading
    > there? Will the heading hurt the page?
    >
    > The URL of the tested page is: www.pinyinology.com
    >



    For now, you could put in a line between <head> and </head> that
    reads

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
    charset=ISO-8859-1">

    or

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
    charset=UTF-8">

    Or contact your server admin and inquire how to set something on
    this matter at the server end.

    You cannot just change the doctype, you need to see what the
    specs are for the 4.01 Strict doctype is and form your markup
    accordingly. You are using a wrong "/" in some tags. This is the
    style for XHTML, not appropriate here.

    Come to think of it, with your marquees and embeds, perhaps
    simpler for the moment for you to use a less strict doctype until
    you have studied these matters further:

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

    or even

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Wilbur/HTML32.dtd">

    But aim for 4.01 Strict. This will involve some work and study.

    I enjoyed looking and hearing things on your site, nice
    surprises. Some things worked in some of my browsers.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Feb 3, 2007
    #19
  20. fuli open

    fuli open Guest

    On Feb 2, 11:33 pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    > "fuli open" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Feb 2, 3:40 pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    > > > In article
    > > > <>,
    > > > "fuli open" <> wrote:

    >
    > > > > On Feb 1, 5:17 pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    > > > > > > > "The expert advice is to use HTML 4.01, but you can of course use
    > > > > > > > technobabble-XHTML _if_ you are careful enough to follow
    > > > > > > > guidelines that effectively make it HTML 4.01 with pointless
    > > > > > > > kludges."

    >
    > > > > Also, which language do html professionals like better, xhtml or html
    > > > > 4.01? As an amateur, following suit is the best policy.

    >
    > > > Just use HTML 4.01.

    >
    > > I tested my home page with html 4 strict on the html validator, and
    > > was told as follows:

    >
    > > quote
    > > No Character Encoding Found! Falling back to UTF-8.

    >
    > > This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!
    > > unquote

    >
    > > In fact, I tested all the three headings, xhtml, html transitional and
    > > html strict, but was told that my page was not valid any. And if the
    > > page is not valid for any heading, do I still need to put a heading
    > > there? Will the heading hurt the page?

    >
    > > The URL of the tested page is:www.pinyinology.com

    >
    > For now, you could put in a line between <head> and </head> that
    > reads
    >
    > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
    > charset=ISO-8859-1">
    >
    > or
    >
    > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
    > charset=UTF-8">
    >
    > Or contact your server admin and inquire how to set something on
    > this matter at the server end.
    >
    > You cannot just change the doctype, you need to see what the
    > specs are for the 4.01 Strict doctype is and form your markup
    > accordingly. You are using a wrong "/" in some tags. This is the
    > style for XHTML, not appropriate here.
    >
    > Come to think of it, with your marquees and embeds, perhaps
    > simpler for the moment for you to use a less strict doctype until
    > you have studied these matters further:
    >
    > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
    >
    > or even
    >
    > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Wilbur/HTML32.dtd">
    >
    > But aim for 4.01 Strict. This will involve some work and study.
    >
    > I enjoyed looking and hearing things on your site, nice
    > surprises. Some things worked in some of my browsers.


    I got 11 errors with the 4.01 Transitional, but 28 errors with 3.2
    Final. It seems better to put the 4.01 Transitional there for the
    moment. Thanks a lot for your help and encouraging comments.

    fuli
    >
    > --
    > dorayme
     
    fuli open, Feb 3, 2007
    #20
    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. Hans Kesting
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    351
    Hans Kesting
    Feb 8, 2005
  2. Showjumper
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    936
    Showjumper
    Oct 24, 2005
  3. Klaus Wertler

    Configuration of CSS Validator

    Klaus Wertler, Nov 14, 2003, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    360
    Klaus Wertler
    Nov 14, 2003
  4. Marc
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    796
    nice.guy.nige
    Jul 28, 2003
  5. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    947
    Richter~9.6
    Feb 13, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page