Frontpage 2002 - DOCTYPE ?

#1 July 20th, 2005, 04:06 PM

I produce a couple of simple web sites on Frontpage 2002 and when attempting
to validate the pages via W3C.org I get the FATAL ERROR message because the
pages don't have the proper DTD's. My pages are only prefaced by <html>.
My index page is a frame page and the banner, content, and main pages are
vanilla FrontPage 2002.

Will someone kindly enlighten me as to the proper DTD's for the these pages?
The sites I work with are www.remodelingassociation.com and
www.mansfieldwellness.com .

Thank you,
Ray Alexander rayalex@worldnet.att.net

#2 July 20th, 2005, 04:06 PM

Raymond Alexander wrote:
[color=blue]
> I produce a couple of simple web sites on Frontpage 2002[/color]

Uh oh. Frontpage isn't very good at HTML.
[color=blue]
> and when attempting to validate the pages via W3C.org I get the FATAL
> ERROR message because the pages don't have the proper DTD's. My pages are
> only prefaced by <html>.[/color]
[color=blue]
> My index page is a frame page[/color]

http://stone.thecoreworlds.net/www/frames/
[color=blue]
> Will someone kindly enlighten me as to the proper DTD's for the these
> pages?[/color]

Generally:

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

Documents being converted from HTML 3.2 or tag soup should be HTML 4.01
Transitional:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

Frameset documents should be HTML 4.01 Frameset:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Frameset//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/frameset.dtd">

http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html

--
David Dorward http://david.us-lot.org/
Redesign in progress: http://stone.thecoreworlds.net/
Microsoft announces IE is dead (so upgrade):
http://minutillo.com/steve/weblog/20...ces-ie-is-dead

#3 July 20th, 2005, 04:06 PM

In message <WL%Ka.24838$0v4.1889180@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
on Friday June 27 2003 13:09, Raymond Alexander wrote:
[color=blue]
> I produce a couple of simple web sites on Frontpage 2002 and when
> attempting to validate the pages via W3C.org I get the FATAL ERROR
> message because the
> pages don't have the proper DTD's. My pages are only prefaced by
> <html>. My index page is a frame page and the banner, content, and
> main pages are vanilla FrontPage 2002.
>
> Will someone kindly enlighten me as to the proper DTD's for the these
> pages? The sites I work with are www.remodelingassociation.com and
> www.mansfieldwellness.com .[/color]

First, ditch Frontpage, it's great at making IE sites but really lousy
at making Web sites. Once you've found a better editor, try the DOCTYPE
for HTML 4.01 Transitional:

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

--
Shawn K. Quinn

#4 July 20th, 2005, 04:06 PM

"Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@speakeasy.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>First, ditch Frontpage, it's great at making IE sites but really lousy
>at making Web sites.[/color]

Amen bro.
[color=blue]
>Once you've found a better editor, try the DOCTYPE
>for HTML 4.01 Transitional:
>
><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">[/color]

Ieeckkk, for a newly authored document? Strict please, transitional is
for legacy documents that cannot be updated.

Headless

#5 July 20th, 2005, 04:06 PM

In message <h5cqfv8v6prv46vk661j57cf7keuj5inha@4ax.com> on Saturday June
28 2003 01:09, Headless wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@speakeasy.net> wrote:[color=green]
>>Once you've found a better editor, try the DOCTYPE
>>for HTML 4.01 Transitional:
>>
>><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">[/color]
>
> Ieeckkk, for a newly authored document? Strict please, transitional is
> for legacy documents that cannot be updated.[/color]

Nothing in the original post implied these were newly authored
sites/documents. If they are, then yes, strict is the way to go.

--
Shawn K. Quinn

#6 July 20th, 2005, 04:06 PM

Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
[color=blue]
> Nothing in the original post implied these were newly authored
> sites/documents.[/color]

When was Frontpage 2002 released? :)

--
David Dorward http://david.us-lot.org/
Redesign in progress: http://stone.thecoreworlds.net/
Microsoft announces IE is dead (so upgrade):
http://minutillo.com/steve/weblog/20...ces-ie-is-dead

#7 July 20th, 2005, 04:06 PM

Shawn K. Quinn wrote:[color=blue]
> In message <bdjhdl$27i$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk> on Saturday June
> 28 2003 02:50, David Dorward wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> When was Frontpage 2002 released? :)[/color]
>
> Unfortunately, knowing Microsoft, sometime in middle to late 2001.[/color]

Either that or next year.

--

Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

#8 July 20th, 2005, 04:06 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: Raymond Alexander <>
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 2:09 PM
Subject: Frontpage 2002 - DOCTYPE ?

[color=blue]
> I produce a couple of simple web sites on Frontpage 2002 and when[/color]
attempting[color=blue]
> to validate the pages via W3C.org I get the FATAL ERROR message because[/color]
the[color=blue]
> pages don't have the proper DTD's. My pages are only prefaced by <html>.
> My index page is a frame page and the banner, content, and main pages are
> vanilla FrontPage 2002.
>
> Will someone kindly enlighten me as to the proper DTD's for the these[/color]
pages?[color=blue]
> The sites I work with are www.remodelingassociation.com and
> www.mansfieldwellness.com .
>
> Thank you,
> Ray Alexander rayalex@worldnet.att.net
>
>[/color]

Ray,
Contrary to what you've been offered here?
I've been using FP in a very limited capacity for over four years with two
websites of over 600 pages. Some of the pages are retunrned number one on
searches. In one category I have the first four. My main page returns either
9th or 14th in it's category, depending upon, which SE is used. I consider
this acceptable. And even admirable.

I don't under any circustances used either the "publish or componets
options" in FP. I have two sections which utilize frames however the
majority are individual pages.
I have additionally learned that the bulk of the FP bloat everybody holds
FP reponsible for is created by MS users who are cutting and pasting content
directly from Word into FP. It should NEVER be done. Rather Cut and paste
from Word to NotePad and then from NotePad to FP. You'll be surprised how
much bloat disappears :)

I do NOT use a DocType as such below:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">

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

My pages will not validate unless I use Ver 3.something of the validator and
even then errors are evident.
Why should I care?
My pages function as I desire and are created for and traversed and tested
for a variety of broswers.
I do not even use CSS.

My suugestion is not to get your shorts bunched up in an attempt to validate
your functioning pages.

#9 July 20th, 2005, 04:06 PM

lostinspace wrote:[color=blue]
>
>
> I do NOT use a DocType as such below:
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
>
> Instead:
> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
> charset=iso-8859-1">
>[/color]

That is not a DOCTYPE - it is a meta hack for the character set information
your server should be sending. They are 2 very different animals.
[color=blue]
> My pages will not validate unless I use Ver 3.something of the
> validator[/color]

You mean the HTML 3.0 DOCTYPE?
[color=blue]
> and even then errors are evident.[/color]

Strangely enough, that's because your page contains invalid markup.
[color=blue]
> Why should I care?[/color]

Standards are there for a reason.
[color=blue]
> My pages function as I desire and are created for and traversed and
> tested for a variety of broswers.[/color]

What, IE 4, 5 *and* 6?
[color=blue]
> I do not even use CSS.
>[/color]

Then you are about 5 years behind the times. You are making your job harder
for yourself. It is well worth the effort to learn CSS.

--

Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

#10 July 20th, 2005, 04:06 PM

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 05:56:46 GMT, "lostinspace"
<lostinspace@123-universe.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Ray,
> Contrary to what you've been offered here?
>I've been using FP in a very limited capacity for over four years with two
>websites of over 600 pages. Some of the pages are retunrned number one on
>searches. In one category I have the first four. My main page returns either
>9th or 14th in it's category, depending upon, which SE is used. I consider
>this acceptable. And even admirable.[/color]

<snip>[color=blue]
>My pages function as I desire and are created for and traversed and tested
>for a variety of broswers.[/color]

Well I'm sure some of the people here would be interested to see a
non-bloated Front Page generated site which also displays well on
different platforms. How about offering a URL or two?

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

#11 July 20th, 2005, 04:06 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Poley <>
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 5:43 AM
Subject: Re: Frontpage 2002 - DOCTYPE ?

[color=blue]
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 05:56:46 GMT, "lostinspace"
> <> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >Ray,
> > Contrary to what you've been offered here?
> >I've been using FP in a very limited capacity for over four years with[/color][/color]
two[color=blue][color=green]
> >websites of over 600 pages. Some of the pages are returned number one on
> >searches. In one category I have the first four. My main page returns[/color][/color]
either[color=blue][color=green]
> >9th or 14th in it's category, depending upon, which SE is used. I[/color][/color]
consider[color=blue][color=green]
> >this acceptable. And even admirable.[/color]
>
> <snip>[color=green]
> >My pages function as I desire and are created for and traversed and[/color][/color]
tested[color=blue][color=green]
> >for a variety of browsers.[/color]
>
> Well I'm sure some of the people here would be interested to see a
> non-bloated Front Page generated site which also displays well on
> different platforms. How about offering a URL or two?
>
> --
> Stephen Poley
>[/color]

Stephen,
It's not really important to me what "people here" desire to
see.
My interest was in assisting Ray.

I use a munged email, the No archive option and no longer provide my URL's
in Usenet because references are still dug from the archives seeking
examples I provided 3-4 years ago for webpage examples (not of design but
rather of use.)
Besides you being from the Netherlands likely wouldn't get in my sites
anyway. I have much of APNIC and RIPE denied.

FP has been and will always be whipped in the NG's.
Ray would have just as much trouble in the FP forums (
microsoft.public.frontpage.
http://www.frontpagewebmaster.com ) attempting to seek
validation. It seems his effectiveness is a cross between two world's, one
being sound html and the other of FP users. He fits neither category since
he is attempting to cross over methods.

#12 July 20th, 2005, 04:06 PM

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:00:48 GMT, "lostinspace"
<lostinspace@123-universe.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Stephen Poley <>[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 05:56:46 GMT, "lostinspace" wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > Contrary to what you've been offered here?
>> >I've been using FP in a very limited capacity for over four years with two
>> >websites of over 600 pages.[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Well I'm sure some of the people here would be interested to see a
>> non-bloated Front Page generated site which also displays well on
>> different platforms. How about offering a URL or two?[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> It's not really important to me what "people here" desire to see.
>My interest was in assisting Ray.
>
>I use a munged email, the No archive option and no longer provide my URL's
>in Usenet because references are still dug from the archives seeking
>examples I provided 3-4 years ago for webpage examples (not of design but
>rather of use.)
>Besides you being from the Netherlands likely wouldn't get in my sites
>anyway. I have much of APNIC and RIPE denied.[/color]

So what are we to conclude from this? It looks very much like:
- you aren't authoring for the Web at all;
- your sites can't stand the light of day;
- nor can your Usenet posts.

I think Ray (and everyone else) can draw their conclusions.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

#13 July 20th, 2005, 04:06 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Parnell <>
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 2:32 AM
Subject: Re: Frontpage 2002 - DOCTYPE ?

[color=blue]
> lostinspace wrote:[color=green]
> >
> >
> > I do NOT use a DocType as such below:
> > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
> >
> > Instead:
> > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
> > charset=iso-8859-1">
> >[/color]
>
> That is not a DOCTYPE - it is a meta hack for the character set[/color]
information[color=blue]
> your server should be sending. They are 2 very different animals.
>[color=green]
> > My pages will not validate unless I use Ver 3.something of the
> > validator[/color]
>
> You mean the HTML 3.0 DOCTYPE?
>[color=green]
> > and even then errors are evident.[/color]
>
> Strangely enough, that's because your page contains invalid markup.
>[color=green]
> > Why should I care?[/color]
>
> Standards are there for a reason.
>[/color]

Mark. I do realize that and it was not my intent to advise Ray to avoid
standards.
Rather to answer his inquiry and help him to determine what method he
decides to commit to.

[color=blue][color=green]
> > My pages function as I desire and are created for and traversed and
> > tested for a variety of broswers.[/color]
>
> What, IE 4, 5 *and* 6?
>[/color]

Mark, prior to my websites and since my sites support three email discussion
lists. Among the subscribers are a variety of users and browsers which
allowed testing prior to initializtion of pages. Besides IE versions, AOL,
WEBTV and a few of the minute and more precise browsers. Even the few
Netscape users didn't report any problems.

[color=blue][color=green]
> > I do not even use CSS.
> >[/color]
>
> Then you are about 5 years behind the times. You are making your job[/color]
harder[color=blue]
> for yourself. It is well worth the effort to learn CSS.
>[/color]

I realize that and I did explore CSS.
The problem is that I have enough content awaiting my efforts to keep me
busy till I'm put in the ground. My efforts are concentrated in this
direction rather than exploring alternate page design methods.

Many thanks for your concern and effort.

[color=blue]
> --
>
> Mark Parnell
>
>[/color]

#14 July 20th, 2005, 04:07 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Poley <>
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: Frontpage 2002 - DOCTYPE ?

[color=blue]
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:00:48 GMT, "lostinspace"
> <lostinspace@123-universe.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Stephen Poley <>[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 05:56:46 GMT, "lostinspace" wrote:
> >>
> >> > Contrary to what you've been offered here?
> >> >I've been using FP in a very limited capacity for over four years with[/color][/color][/color]
two[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >websites of over 600 pages.[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Well I'm sure some of the people here would be interested to see a
> >> non-bloated Front Page generated site which also displays well on
> >> different platforms. How about offering a URL or two?[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > It's not really important to me what "people here" desire to see.
> >My interest was in assisting Ray.
> >
> >I use a munged email, the No archive option and no longer provide my[/color][/color]
URL's[color=blue][color=green]
> >in Usenet because references are still dug from the archives seeking
> >examples I provided 3-4 years ago for webpage examples (not of design but
> >rather of use.)
> >Besides you being from the Netherlands likely wouldn't get in my sites
> >anyway. I have much of APNIC and RIPE denied.[/color]
>
> So what are we to conclude from this? It looks very much like:
> - you aren't authoring for the Web at all;
> - your sites can't stand the light of day;
> - nor can your Usenet posts.
>
> I think Ray (and everyone else) can draw their conclusions.
>
> --
> Stephen Poley
>[/color]

Stephen,
I'm most definitely NOT authoring for you!
I'm appalled by your arrogance!
You use the terms "we" and "everyone else" as if you personally represent
the entire world and internet. You need to get in touch with reality :)

Since you enjoy games so much?
I'm hoping you have the abilities to perform searches at google and yahoo
;-)

Try:
Robert L. Dickey
Bret Hanover

These pages are not even real priorities although they hold some worthwhile
content.

BTW, I hope your not wasting more of your time?
I didn't look at your mail headers to determine your IP till now!
194.151.190. is still allowed in my sites.
Not having seen your UA, I'm unable to tell you if that is denied.

#15 July 20th, 2005, 04:07 PM

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:11:45 GMT, "lostinspace"
<lostinspace@123-universe.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I'm most definitely NOT authoring for you!
>I'm appalled by your arrogance![/color]

I simply summarised what you just told us. If that's appalling arrogance
in your book, I guess that's up to you.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

#16 July 20th, 2005, 04:07 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Pugh <>
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 4:46 AM
Subject: Re: Frontpage 2002 - DOCTYPE ?

[color=blue]
> "lostinspace" <lostinspace@123-universe.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >
> >SUCH a commanding presence Stephen?
> >In three hours (slighlty under,) there have been three visitors to those
> >pages mentioned.[/color]
>
> Assuming that the site in question is http://www.mi-harness.com/
> then...
>[color=green]
> >One from the UK[/color]
>
> ... that will be me...
>[color=green]
> >and two from North America.
> >One even visited my other site to read the about page.
> >One even used an Opera browser.[/color]
>
> ... and so will that.
>[color=green]
> >This only supports my inclination that sites should be designed with[/color][/color]
goals[color=blue][color=green]
> >in mind. Whether those goals or pages are relavant with the rest of the
> >internet world is NOT important. Only that you reach the market you[/color][/color]
desire.[color=blue]
>
> Presumably your market research showed that people into horses like
> sites with black text and blue links on black backgrounds. Or didn't
> you bother to test it with images turned off?
>[/color]

More absurd irrelevant delarations?
Could you possibly share with me what "share" of the browser market views
pages with images turned off?
Excluding the search engines and bots stealing content?

Could you also share what assitance this carrying on provides to Ray's
initial inquiry for assistance?

[color=blue]
> Steve
>[/color]

#17 July 20th, 2005, 04:07 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Poley <>
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 7:20 AM
Subject: Re: Frontpage 2002 - DOCTYPE ?

[color=blue]
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:11:45 GMT, "lostinspace"
> <> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > I'm most definitely NOT authoring for you!
> >I'm appalled by your arrogance![/color]
>
> I simply summarised what you just told us. If that's appalling arrogance
> in your book, I guess that's up to you.
>
> --
> Stephen Poley
>[/color]

Your arroagnce in this mail (below) implies that YOU speak for everybody in
this forum (including myself and Ray) and the world over as well.
Unmistakeable arrogance and hardly summarization.

[color=blue]
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stephen Poley <>
> Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 5:43 AM
> Subject: Re: Frontpage 2002 - DOCTYPE ?
>
>[color=green]
> > On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 05:56:46 GMT, "lostinspace"
> > <> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > >Ray,
> > > Contrary to what you've been offered here?
> > >I've been using FP in a very limited capacity for over four years with[/color][/color]
> two[color=green][color=darkred]
> > >websites of over 600 pages. Some of the pages are returned number one[/color][/color][/color]
on[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > >searches. In one category I have the first four. My main page returns[/color][/color]
> either[color=green][color=darkred]
> > >9th or 14th in it's category, depending upon, which SE is used. I[/color][/color]
> consider[color=green][color=darkred]
> > >this acceptable. And even admirable.[/color]
> >
> > <snip>[color=darkred]
> > >My pages function as I desire and are created for and traversed and[/color][/color]
> tested[color=green][color=darkred]
> > >for a variety of browsers.[/color]
> >
> > Well I'm sure some of the people here would be interested to see a
> > non-bloated Front Page generated site which also displays well on
> > different platforms. How about offering a URL or two?
> >
> > --
> > Stephen Poley
> >[/color]
>
> Stephen,
> It's not really important to me what "people here" desire to
> see.
> My interest was in assisting Ray.
>
> I use a munged email, the No archive option and no longer provide my[/color]
URL's[color=blue]
> in Usenet because references are still dug from the archives seeking
> examples I provided 3-4 years ago for webpage examples (not of design but
> rather of use.)
> Besides you being from the Netherlands likely wouldn't get in my sites
> anyway. I have much of APNIC and RIPE denied.
>
> FP has been and will always be whipped in the NG's.
> Ray would have just as much trouble in the FP forums (
> microsoft.public.frontpage.
> http://www.frontpagewebmaster.com ) attempting to seek
> validation. It seems his effectiveness is a cross between two world's, one
> being sound html and the other of FP users. He fits neither category since
> he is attempting to cross over methods.
>
>[/color]

#18 July 20th, 2005, 04:07 PM

"lostinspace" <lostinspace@123-universe.com> wrote:[color=blue]
>Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Presumably your market research showed that people into horses like
>> sites with black text and blue links on black backgrounds. Or didn't
>> you bother to test it with images turned off?
>>[/color]
>More absurd irrelevant delarations?
>Could you possibly share with me what "share" of the browser market views
>pages with images turned off?[/color]

What percentage would it need to be for you to give a damn?

My default browser background colour is not black, so for me to have
gotten black on black you had to take the conscience decision to set
the background and foreground colours to black. Care to tell us what
market research led you to make that decision?

The page I am referring to is
http://www.mi-harness.com/jiba/whanew.html
[color=blue]
>Could you also share what assitance this carrying on provides to Ray's
>initial inquiry for assistance?[/color]

This is Usenet, not a help desk. The OP's question has already been
answered, the answer given by David Doward in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ws.demon.co.uk
says everything that I would have said on the topic.

We're now discussing issues arising from the given answers. It's part
of the peer review process that makes Usenet a valuable resource. If
you don't like people commenting on the answers you give then perhaps
you shouldn't give them.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

#19 July 20th, 2005, 04:07 PM

lostinspace wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Your arroagnce in this mail (below) implies that YOU speak for
> everybody in this forum (including myself and Ray) and the world over
> as well. Unmistakeable arrogance and hardly summarization.
>[color=green]
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Stephen Poley <>
>> Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
>> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 5:43 AM
>> Subject: Re: Frontpage 2002 - DOCTYPE ?
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> Well I'm sure some of the people here would be interested to see a
>>> non-bloated Front Page generated site which also displays well on
>>> different platforms. How about offering a URL or two?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Stephen Poley
>>>[/color][/color][/color]

He simply asked for a URL (or two). And he did say *some* of the people
here. Hardly what you are accusing him of. In fact, almost the opposite.

--

Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

What is Bytes?

Popular Articles