Posted by windandwaves on 09/20/07 04:26

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"

That is an interesting one. It validates when you let the validator
choose. Bottom line is that the code validates (just take the source
code and past it into the direct input for the w3 validator.

>
> There are CSS errors:
> <http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css2&warning=2&u...>

I have fixed the errors that I should have fixed. However, some of
them are there as hacks for certain browsers...

>
> > Apparently it is not working in IE6, although for it does.
>


Yes, well, I will have to check this out. It certainly works for
me.....but some where having troubles.

> "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

[Back to original message]