3 ms·
Indeed, retro. Not quite valid though unfortunately. Apart from the annoying character encoding, doctype, etc. problems, there's a </p> without a <p>, and a <ul
by ljcn 8y ago
Indeed, retro. Not quite valid though unfortunately. Apart from the annoying character encoding, doctype, etc. problems, there's a </p> without a <p>, and a <ul> missing a preceding <li>.