Have you just fixed the display ? It looks perfect to me….
» 10/11/2004–10/18/2004
» 10/10/2004–10/17/2004
» 10/03/2004–10/10/2004
That also looks right.
Or have I got something wrong ?
Thread Starter
edpham
(@edpham)
Hrm… That’s weird. This is what I’m seeing right now:
» 10/11/2004–10/18/2004
» 10/10/2004–10/17/2004
» 10/03/2004–10/10/2004
» 09/20/2004–09/26/2004
» 09/13/2004–09/19/2004
» 09/12/2004–09/19/2004
» 09/05/2004–09/12/2004
» 08/29/2004–09/05/2004
» 08/22/2004–08/29/2004
» 08/15/2004–08/22/2004
» 08/02/2004–08/08/2004
» 08/01/2004–08/08/2004
» 07/25/2004–08/01/2004
» 07/18/2004–07/25/2004
» 07/05/2004–07/11/2004
» 07/04/2004–07/11/2004
» 06/27/2004–07/04/2004
» 06/14/2004–06/20/2004
» 06/07/2004–06/13/2004
» 06/06/2004–06/13/2004
» 05/30/2004–06/06/2004
» 05/17/2004–05/23/2004
» 05/10/2004–05/16/2004
» 05/09/2004–05/16/2004
» 05/02/2004–05/09/2004
» 04/25/2004–05/02/2004
» 04/12/2004–04/18/2004
» 04/05/2004–04/11/2004
» 03/29/2004–04/05/2004
» 03/28/2004–04/05/2004
I don’t know they’re looking different like that.
I’ve checked in IE6 and FF.10.1 and I see exactly the same display.
It looks just like Iwould expect an archives page to look … even if I visit a link the page display stays the same.
I do see the whole list, I only pasted a few lines here to illustrate the display issue.
Bottom entry is » 03/07/2004–03/14/2004
Thread Starter
edpham
(@edpham)
I don’t think you’re getting what I’m trying to say.
» 10/11/2004–10/18/2004
» 10/10/2004–10/17/2004
Like this one for example. They’re overlapping dates. It shouldn’t be overlapping like that…