On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Andre Dubuc wrote:
> On May 23, 2009, you wrote:
>> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Nathan Rixham wrote:
>> > Andre Dubuc wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I'm having problems with a chunk of 'rogue' code that does not perform
>> >> as expected (it does not pass the e
LinuxManMikeC wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Nathan Rixham wrote:
Andre Dubuc wrote:
Hi,
I'm having problems with a chunk of 'rogue' code that does not perform as
expected (it does not pass the expected date, but an empty value). Most of
the time, it works - so I'm wondering whether
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> Andre Dubuc wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm having problems with a chunk of 'rogue' code that does not perform as
>> expected (it does not pass the expected date, but an empty value). Most of
>> the time, it works - so I'm wondering whether it mig
Andre Dubuc wrote:
Hi,
I'm having problems with a chunk of 'rogue' code that does not perform as
expected (it does not pass the expected date, but an empty value). Most of
the time, it works - so I'm wondering whether it might be a browser issue.
(The latest failure occurred with Firfeox 3.0
4 matches
Mail list logo