Why choose a paragraph element for a paragraph?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by dorayme, Mar 10, 2009.

  1. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    Why should a *practical* website maker choose a paragraph element for a
    paragraph?

    As far as I can work out, for no *other* reason than that the P element
    is associated in browsers with ready made styles that humans can
    recognise as indicating a paragraph. So it saves bother! Easier than
    fashioning styles for a DIV.

    Much easier to trim a hedge than grow one in the first place. And pretty
    well the same thing goes for all other elements.

    Imagining that the paragraph as it exists in the HTML is somehow free of
    presentation is like imagining walking out of the house nude knowing the
    door is rigged to trigger clothes to magically cover your loveliness.

    "I'm going to walk out nude" is not very brave under these
    circumstances.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Mar 10, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. dorayme

    rf Guest

    dorayme wrote:
    > Why should a *practical* website maker choose a paragraph element for
    > a paragraph?


    Because it's a paragraph.

    > As far as I can work out, for no *other* reason than that the P
    > element is associated in browsers with ready made styles that humans
    > can recognise as indicating a paragraph. So it saves bother! Easier
    > than fashioning styles for a DIV.


    Do aural browsers pause, say, between divs, as they might beween paragraphs?
    Did you do all of your homework on that 'fashion" stuff?

    You really must get some sleep girl. You have been playing around in those
    pissing contests over at AWW for far too long. You are beginning to sound
    just like RtS.
    rf, Mar 10, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. dorayme wrote:
    > Why should a *practical* website maker choose a paragraph element for a
    > paragraph?
    >
    > As far as I can work out, for no *other* reason than that the P element
    > is associated in browsers with ready made styles that humans can
    > recognise as indicating a paragraph. So it saves bother! Easier than
    > fashioning styles for a DIV.


    That's backwards. If it weren't for the sense that text is decomposable
    into paragraphs, there wouldn't be any motivation to *display* text in
    the form of visibly separate paragraphs. The P element, like all the
    other elements, then, exists, because the whole purpose of HTML, as that
    of SGML, is to represent the structure of a document.

    > Much easier to trim a hedge than grow one in the first place. And pretty
    > well the same thing goes for all other elements.
    >
    > Imagining that the paragraph as it exists in the HTML is somehow free of
    > presentation is like imagining walking out of the house nude knowing the
    > door is rigged to trigger clothes to magically cover your loveliness.
    >
    > "I'm going to walk out nude" is not very brave under these
    > circumstances.


    Yes, everyone assumes that a visual presentation of a marked up document
    will make use of the markup to provide a presentation that clarifies the
    structure of the document. The structure is still what the HTML
    represents, and the presentation is then the choice of the browser, the
    author, and/or the user.
    Harlan Messinger, Mar 10, 2009
    #3
  4. dorayme

    C A Upsdell Guest

    dorayme wrote:
    > Why should a *practical* website maker choose a paragraph element for a
    > paragraph?
    >
    > As far as I can work out, for no *other* reason than that the P element
    > is associated in browsers with ready made styles that humans can
    > recognise as indicating a paragraph. So it saves bother! Easier than
    > fashioning styles for a DIV.


    Do as you please. We don't care. Your visitors may, but we don't care
    about *your* visitors.
    C A Upsdell, Mar 10, 2009
    #4
  5. dorayme wrote:
    > Why should a *practical* website maker choose a paragraph element for a
    > paragraph?
    >
    > As far as I can work out, for no *other* reason than that the P element
    > is associated in browsers with ready made styles that humans can
    > recognise as indicating a paragraph. So it saves bother! Easier than
    > fashioning styles for a DIV.


    Because the text within has the function|identity of a paragraph as
    opposed to some other block of text, heading, caption, address. I would
    use DIV for a generic block like a phrase or text fragment. Let's use
    the old house analogy.

    A stud is just a 2x4, just as a P is just a block element like a DIV;
    but a *stud* has a specific structural function as opposed to the
    generic *board*. A *stud* conveys the board's purpose or function.

    Now generally a stud will be "styled" as a 2x4 @ 92" long just as a P
    has a basic default style. A stud may be a 2x6 or a 2x8 like a joist or
    rafter but the function is not the same just as a P may have larger text
    like a H2 or H3 but their functions are different.


    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Mar 10, 2009
    #5
  6. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Harlan Messinger <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > Why should a *practical* website maker choose a paragraph element for a
    > > paragraph?
    > >
    > > As far as I can work out, for no *other* reason than that the P element
    > > is associated in browsers with ready made styles that humans can
    > > recognise as indicating a paragraph. So it saves bother! Easier than
    > > fashioning styles for a DIV.

    >
    > That's backwards. If it weren't for the sense that text is decomposable
    > into paragraphs, there wouldn't be any motivation to *display* text in
    > the form of visibly separate paragraphs. The P element, like all the
    > other elements, then, exists, because the whole purpose of HTML, as that
    > of SGML, is to represent the structure of a document.
    >


    I am starting, in this thread, to keep things simple and manageable,
    with the assumption that there are paragraphs to be marked up. That this
    is a *settled* question. You are talking other and interesting and
    possibly deeper questions about whole document structure.

    It could be a settled question where, to take an example, the website
    maker is given an established author's work to be marked up and he is
    not expected to second guess what the paragraphs should be or even much
    else in some cases.

    Just from this perspective, there is the good reason I mention, to use a
    paragraph element for paragraphs. Seems transparent and easy to
    understand in itself.

    A lot of website design work is rather like this in that much of the
    units are obviously paragraphs, headings, lists, tables, pictures. How
    to organise these units, even to alter their nature under structural
    pressures is a different, more complicated question. How to assign the
    order of headings is an important structural matter. I suspect that
    presentational matters are part and parcel of this too. Not for no
    reason does HTML order count a lot (author CSS unavailable). And it
    counts in a seriously presentational way. But I am not arguing this
    right now.

    > > Much easier to trim a hedge than grow one in the first place. And pretty
    > > well the same thing goes for all other elements.
    > >

    >
    > Yes, everyone assumes that a visual presentation of a marked up document
    > will make use of the markup to provide a presentation that clarifies the
    > structure of the document. The structure is still what the HTML
    > represents, and the presentation is then the choice of the browser, the
    > author, and/or the user.


    Nothing I say, I hope you know, is particularly intended to be confined
    to visual presentation.

    The structure may well be what the HTML represents in some sense. But
    what does a humble part represent? It represents a paragraph (to take a
    case). And this means something quite transparent, it is a laser mark
    that browsers use, because of their defaults styles, to communicate the
    paragraph to humans in such a way that they can see it is a paragraph.
    The story that you want to tell about what the HTML represents does not
    come into the matter directly. Browsers do not understand structure or
    content in any other way than stimulus/style response.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Mar 10, 2009
    #6
  7. dorayme

    David Segall Guest

    dorayme <> wrote:

    >Why should a *practical* website maker choose a paragraph element for a
    >paragraph?
    >
    >As far as I can work out, for no *other* reason than that the P element
    >is associated in browsers with ready made styles that humans can
    >recognise as indicating a paragraph. So it saves bother!


    Saving bother is a side effect. The central idea behind HTML and any
    other SGML derived mark up language is that a "document" has a
    structure that is independent of the contents of the document and the
    elements of that structure can be given names like "paragraph",
    "heading", "chapter" etc. If an author marks the document with the
    correct names and adheres to the Document Type Definition then a
    publisher can easily write a program to format the document to the
    publisher's preferred style.

    You should be able to submit the same SGML text as a W3C Working Draft
    or an article for "Inside Film" and have their respective computers
    convert it to look like every other article they publish.
    David Segall, Mar 10, 2009
    #7
  8. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <gp5oad$s0t$>,
    C A Upsdell <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > Why should a *practical* website maker choose a paragraph element for a
    > > paragraph?
    > >
    > > As far as I can work out, for no *other* reason than that the P element
    > > is associated in browsers with ready made styles that humans can
    > > recognise as indicating a paragraph. So it saves bother! Easier than
    > > fashioning styles for a DIV.

    >
    > Do as you please. We don't care. Your visitors may, but we don't care
    > about *your* visitors.


    What has this personal stuff got to do with anything? Have I insulted
    you in some way?

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Mar 10, 2009
    #8
  9. dorayme

    houghi Guest

    Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    > Now generally a stud will be "styled" as a 2x4 @ 92" long just as a P
    > has a basic default style. A stud may be a 2x6 or a 2x8 like a joist or
    > rafter but the function is not the same just as a P may have larger text
    > like a H2 or H3 but their functions are different.


    And many people in the world will say "2x4 what?" ;-)

    houghi
    --
    Personally, I think most sports fans are a little "gay". They'd
    rather watch a bunch of sweaty guys jumping all over eachother,
    than, say fashion TV - where hot models walk down the runway.
    houghi, Mar 10, 2009
    #9
  10. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    David Segall <> wrote:

    > dorayme <> wrote:
    >
    > >Why should a *practical* website maker choose a paragraph element for a
    > >paragraph?
    > >
    > >As far as I can work out, for no *other* reason than that the P element
    > >is associated in browsers with ready made styles that humans can
    > >recognise as indicating a paragraph. So it saves bother!

    >
    > Saving bother is a side effect.


    Some side effect! It is a massive one imo and I did not mean it to sound
    trivial.

    When I mark up a paragraph in a paragraph element, I am thinking, this
    is a paragraph, I will mark it up so because I trust that browsers of
    every kind know what to do when they see the tags and they will make
    sure that the audience will know it is a paragraph.

    I am in this way relieved of a massive amount of work. Massive! I do not
    need to study all the devices that are around, try to cater for devices
    that will be invented etc. I trust that these tags are the signal for
    *all* competent devices because their makers know what a paragraph is
    and build in the necessary presentational mechanisms for it to be
    received by an audience for what it is, a paragraph.

    It seems I should be thinking fancier things according to what you and
    Harlan are telling me. I am not in some stationary position and welcome
    your thoughts a lot and continue to think about them.


    > The central idea behind HTML and any
    > other SGML derived mark up language is that a "document" has a
    > structure that is independent of the contents of the document and the
    > elements of that structure can be given names like "paragraph",
    > "heading", "chapter" etc. If an author marks the document with the
    > correct names and adheres to the Document Type Definition then a
    > publisher can easily write a program to format the document to the
    > publisher's preferred style.
    >
    > You should be able to submit the same SGML text as a W3C Working Draft
    > or an article for "Inside Film" and have their respective computers
    > convert it to look like every other article they publish.


    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Mar 10, 2009
    #10
  11. dorayme wrote:

    > Yes, I would say same as you. I agree with you. 100%. But I was
    > discussing what I thought function|identity comes down to in real terms.
    > A sort of explanation of it in terms that are simple and transparent and
    > not left at an intuitive level.
    >


    I am not sure what you are asking. The HTML elements assign the specific
    functionally of the content and there are generic elements that can be
    customized. What would the sense be in <div class="paragraph">...? I
    mean DIV works well for defining specialized sections

    <div class="preamble">
    <p>First paragraph in preamble...</p>
    <p>Second paragraph in preamble...</p>
    <p>Third paragraph in preamble...</p>
    </div>



    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Mar 10, 2009
    #11
  12. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <7766d$49b67c82$40cba7c2$>,
    "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    >
    > > Yes, I would say same as you. I agree with you. 100%. But I was
    > > discussing what I thought function|identity comes down to in real terms.
    > > A sort of explanation of it in terms that are simple and transparent and
    > > not left at an intuitive level.
    > >

    >
    > I am not sure what you are asking.


    I was discussing some things. I was asking, I suppose, why a practical
    website maker should use a P element instead of a styled DIV and I have
    one answer I am inclined to give.


    > The HTML elements assign the specific
    > functionally of the content and there are generic elements that can be
    > customized. What would the sense be in <div class="paragraph">...? I
    > mean DIV works well for defining specialized sections
    >

    I have already said that it would not be a very sensible thing to do in
    fact. But you and I would likely give different explanations about *why*
    it is bad. I have previously outlined why I think it is bad and did so
    again in a post to David just now.

    For example, to add to what I might have said before, if I were to
    confidently use a DIV style as a paragraph, I would need to control all
    devices to ensure they have my styles turned on. I would need to take
    more complicated actions for devices that were geared to read P tags but
    not CSS2.1 styles so much... The idea I have about paragraph mark up is
    that we website makers can take comfort in the fact that all devices
    will understand them. And, as far as devices are concerned,
    understanding is merely "being triggered by tags to deliver recognisable
    presentations to humans".

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Mar 10, 2009
    #12
  13. dorayme

    Duende Guest

    On 10 Mar 2009 rf wrote in alt.html

    > You are beginning to sound just like RtS.
    >


    Hey, he was the smartist person ever to inhabit this group.

    --
    D?
    Duende, Mar 10, 2009
    #13
  14. Ed Mullen wrote:
    > houghi wrote:
    >> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >>> Now generally a stud will be "styled" as a 2x4 @ 92" long just as a P
    >>> has a basic default style. A stud may be a 2x6 or a 2x8 like a joist
    >>> or rafter but the function is not the same just as a P may have
    >>> larger text like a H2 or H3 but their functions are different.

    >>
    >> And many people in the world will say "2x4 what?" ;-)
    >>
    >> houghi

    >
    > Dang! Good question. What is a standard metric stud anyway? :)
    >


    Probably 2x4 since 2x4 != 2"x4"

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Mar 10, 2009
    #14
  15. dorayme

    houghi Guest

    Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >>> And many people in the world will say "2x4 what?" ;-)

    >>
    >> Dang! Good question. What is a standard metric stud anyway? :)

    >
    > Probably 2x4 since 2x4 != 2"x4"


    2x4 what? I found some different measurements. All in mm. (sorry, in
    Dutch)
    http://www.hardeman.nl/webshop_hard...7_330?osCsid=96ae9c880088efbe40d440fafd47deeb
    or http://tinyurl.com/cs3ouh

    houghi
    --
    Personally, I think most sports fans are a little "gay". They'd
    rather watch a bunch of sweaty guys jumping all over eachother,
    than, say fashion TV - where hot models walk down the runway.
    houghi, Mar 10, 2009
    #15
  16. Ben C wrote:
    > On 2009-03-10, Harlan Messinger <> wrote:
    >> dorayme wrote:
    >>> Why should a *practical* website maker choose a paragraph element for a
    >>> paragraph?
    >>>
    >>> As far as I can work out, for no *other* reason than that the P element
    >>> is associated in browsers with ready made styles that humans can
    >>> recognise as indicating a paragraph. So it saves bother! Easier than
    >>> fashioning styles for a DIV.

    >> That's backwards. If it weren't for the sense that text is decomposable
    >> into paragraphs, there wouldn't be any motivation to *display* text in
    >> the form of visibly separate paragraphs.

    >
    > That doesn't follow at all!
    >
    > Paragraphs are groupings of text on a page with some kind of spacing
    > between them, and people have some kind of a feel for how text should be
    > organized into them.


    Paragraphs were a late development in writing. Do you think people
    started spacing their text into chunks for no reason, and then started
    thinking of those chunks as something called paragraphs--and then
    decided to start using this chunking as a nifty way to structure their
    text, as long as they were doing it anyway?

    Writers of Thai and Japanese don't visibly separate their words. That
    doesn't mean they don't conceive of their speech as being divided into
    words. Conception of the structural divisions may or may not lead to the
    use of visual cues. The structural divisions are there regardless. The
    presentation is not the core nature of the divisions.

    > That's _all_ there is. That people have some kind of a feel for how to
    > use paragraphs does not imply there is any such thing as an "abstract
    > paragraph" somewhere behind the scenes which a "visual paragraph" is
    > merely a means of displaying.


    Yes, it does imply that.
    Harlan Messinger, Mar 11, 2009
    #16
  17. dorayme

    rf Guest

    Ed Mullen wrote:
    > Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >> Ed Mullen wrote:
    >>> houghi wrote:
    >>>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >>>>> Now generally a stud will be "styled" as a 2x4 @ 92" long just as
    >>>>> a P has a basic default style. A stud may be a 2x6 or a 2x8 like a
    >>>>> joist or rafter but the function is not the same just as a P may
    >>>>> have larger text like a H2 or H3 but their functions are
    >>>>> different.
    >>>>
    >>>> And many people in the world will say "2x4 what?" ;-)
    >>>>
    >>>> houghi
    >>>
    >>> Dang! Good question. What is a standard metric stud anyway? :)
    >>>

    >>
    >> Probably 2x4 since 2x4 != 2"x4"
    >>

    >
    > Err, inches are metric?
    >
    > What I meant was:
    >
    > In North America a "stud" is 2 inches by 4 inches by 8 feet (unplaned
    > - actual finished dimensions are less). It never occurred to me that
    > overseas, where they use metric measures, that a stud would/might
    > differ in dimensions. So, my question was:
    >
    > What does a wall stud in, say, the UK measure? Do they measure it in
    > inches? Millimeters?


    In .au studs are normally 100mm by 50mm. Length is a multiple of 600mm,
    usually 2.4metres.

    However any chippy worth his sawdust will call them a lump of 4by2.

    >
    > "Standard" ceiling height is usually 8 feet here, hence the stud
    > height. Although, over the last ten or 15 years that has tended to
    > have crept up to 9 feet or more.


    2.4m. 2.7m.
    rf, Mar 11, 2009
    #17
  18. Harlan Messinger wrote:

    > Paragraphs were a late development in writing.


    Originally, paragraphs were often separated just by a special character like
    ¶. Writing material was expensive, so you filled the entire available width
    by letters, without leaving any unnecessary holes. Separation of paragraphs
    was, however, important enough to justify the use of a separating character.
    The word "paragraph" originally referred to the separating character.

    The use of the character of course reflects the idea of dividing text into
    parts, typically a few sentences long, and such division has a counterpart
    in spoken communication - either in the division of conversation into
    utterances of different people, or in the division of a speech or other
    longer presentation into parts, typically separated by pauses and (in good
    style at least) dealing with one topic.

    Later, in more wasteful times, the ¶ character was written at the start of a
    new line, so a paragraph break was indicated both by leaving a line shorter
    than the available width and by the special mark. Then people got the idea
    of omitting the ¶ character but leaving empty space. (A line break alone
    isn't quite sufficient, especially when the last line of a paragraph happens
    to be almost as long as the available width.) This is how first-line indents
    came into use, and this is how paragraphs are still presented in literary
    style.

    The more modern and more wasteful method of leaving an empty line (with no
    first-line indent) is questionable on several grounds. Far from _defining_
    what a paragraph is, it's just the common default in HTML rendering,
    reflecting the habits of typewriting and word processors - and contexts like
    Usenet.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Mar 11, 2009
    #18
  19. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Harlan Messinger <> wrote:

    > Ben C wrote:
    > > On 2009-03-10, Harlan Messinger <> wrote:
    > >> dorayme wrote:
    > >>> Why should a *practical* website maker choose a paragraph element for a
    > >>> paragraph?
    > >>>
    > >>> As far as I can work out, for no *other* reason than that the P element
    > >>> is associated in browsers with ready made styles that humans can
    > >>> recognise as indicating a paragraph. So it saves bother! Easier than
    > >>> fashioning styles for a DIV.
    > >> That's backwards. If it weren't for the sense that text is decomposable
    > >> into paragraphs, there wouldn't be any motivation to *display* text in
    > >> the form of visibly separate paragraphs.

    > >
    > > That doesn't follow at all!
    > >
    > > Paragraphs are groupings of text on a page with some kind of spacing
    > > between them, and people have some kind of a feel for how text should be
    > > organized into them.

    >
    > Paragraphs were a late development in writing.


    Is this relevant to the webpage maker facing the *given fact* of a
    paragraph right now in March 2009?

    > Do you think people
    > started spacing their text into chunks for no reason, and then started
    > thinking of those chunks as something called paragraphs--and then
    > decided to start using this chunking as a nifty way to structure their
    > text, as long as they were doing it anyway?
    >

    People started spacing some of their texts into chunks for good reasons.
    They did not *then* decide to use this chunking for any further nifty
    thing. The nifty invention was already invented when chunking was
    invented. When the car was invented, driving it was not a further
    invention.

    > Writers of Thai and Japanese don't visibly separate their words. That
    > doesn't mean they don't conceive of their speech as being divided into
    > words. Conception of the structural divisions may or may not lead to the
    > use of visual cues. The structural divisions are there regardless. The
    > presentation is not the core nature of the divisions.
    >


    Not sure of Thai but can't see *quite* in what respects you say this
    about Japanese words (there are many compound *concepts* here). Kanji
    uses Chinese iconic characters and these are separated, and there are
    other additional things to make their writing useful. Anyway, this is
    not a very transparent argument.

    Perhaps how an English essay is marked up simply has to be dealt with by
    translation facilities as best as possible (and vice versa). It does not
    follow that there is some abstract object between languages because one
    piece of work in one language can be translated into another language.

    It may simply be that quick and efficient tools for some translational
    tasks leave a lot to be desired. What is a chunk of writing in English
    may even need special provisions (and I am talking more than pauses) in
    talking.

    If an audience is blind, the "whole thought" that is para in English
    writing may really be better presented *not* as a chunk with pauses
    either end. If you are really serious about making pages accessible to
    blind people, you may need to reorganise quite differently. A paragraph
    is a very visual concept and has some limitations translated into speech
    or other languages.

    > > That's _all_ there is. That people have some kind of a feel for how to
    > > use paragraphs does not imply there is any such thing as an "abstract
    > > paragraph" somewhere behind the scenes which a "visual paragraph" is
    > > merely a means of displaying.

    >
    > Yes, it does imply that.


    Then it faces the difficulties implicit in my last paragraphs. Much much
    more transparent is to simply take the paragraph as a given. It is a
    pattern and it is known to huge numbers of humans, there are often
    awkward ways to make other patterns do the same kind of communicative
    job for other languages and modalities (sight/sound/braille).

    It is patterns all the way up and all the way down.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Mar 11, 2009
    #19
  20. dorayme wrote:

    >> Paragraphs were a late development in writing.

    >
    > Is this relevant to the webpage maker facing the *given fact* of a
    > paragraph right now in March 2009?


    It is. But do you know what the word "fact" means, for a fact? Consulting a
    good dictionary, or especially a good manual of style might surprise you.
    Specifically, paragraphs aren't facts.

    Quite often, people who lack better arguments call some opinion of theirs a
    fact just because it's not a fact at all and is strongly under dispute (or
    just plain wrong). If you know that something is really a fact, there is no
    need to call it a fact; you just know it, and if you need to tell others
    about it, you just tell it and, if relevant, present the evidence or refer
    to it. "This is a fact" is quite comparable to "This is not spam."

    > People started spacing some of their texts into chunks for good
    > reasons.


    That's not correct. Spacing is a recent invention. Well, a few centuries
    old, but that's recent when compared to thousands of years of written
    language and probably hundreds of thousands of years of human language.

    Division into chunks, in some sense, has always been an integral part of how
    we use language, from the dawn of language - for all that we can now.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Mar 11, 2009
    #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. Matthew Wilson
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    346
    Sidharthk
    Nov 16, 2003
  2. Mr. SweatyFinger

    why why why why why

    Mr. SweatyFinger, Nov 28, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    862
    Mark Rae
    Dec 21, 2006
  3. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,762
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
  4. Replies:
    23
    Views:
    614
  5. HANM
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    698
    Joseph Kesselman
    Jan 29, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page