|
|
Posted by windandwaves on 09/20/07 22:29
On Sep 20, 2:55 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m...@example.invalid> wrote:
> In alt.html.critique, windandwaves wrote:
> > Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
> > me what you think.
>
> I can barely read the light grey text on the white background.
>
> It looks disjointed with nothing on the right but those five staggered
> images. What do they mean?
>
> There is a lot of white space, and very little content. Hopefully, that
> will come along?
>
> You didn't assign a background color to the body; I see my default
> purple.
>
> I know I am on the other size of the planet, but your server seems very
> slow.
>
> The validator thinks it is HTML 4.01 Strict!
> <http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.winsboro...>
>
> but forcing 1.1,
> <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.winsborough.co.nz%...>
> "This page is not Valid XHTML 1.1!
> Failed validation, 43 Errors"
>
> There are CSS errors:
> <http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css2&warning=2&u...>
>
> > Apparently it is not working in IE6, although for it does.
>
> "although for [me] it does?"
>
> No, it will never work in IE6. You are serving it as
> Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml;
> and IE6 is clueless as to what that is.
>
> Also remove the XML prolog above the doctype. Why XHTML 1.1? What is
> wrong with HTML 4.01 Strict?
>
> --
> -bts
> -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Thank you for your comments. I have taken a pragmatic approach
here... it works so lets not change it.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|