Simple.  Clean.  No errors.
Nice!
Ginae!

In article <%ljTc.407$Yv2.355@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>, kate.simpson
says...
> No errors.

You *are* kidding.  There's not even a doctype.  Forcing HTML4.01 there
are 24 errors.  There's even a typo in the header banner.

--
Hywel

http://sponsorhywel.org.uk/

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 07:40:43 GMT, kate.simpson
<kate.simpson@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Simple.  Clean.  No errors.
> Nice!
> Ginae!
>
>

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...&ss=1&verbose=1

Assuming a HTML 4.01 Transitional DTD (never stated) there are 24 errors,
ranging from omitting the required alt attribute on img elements to
failure to close the center element to misspelled entities to illegal
attributes.

So, yes, there are errors. IE won't show them, but it's not error free.

Remember, all elements are either empty - which means they do not affect
other content, but stand alone - or have open and close tags and affect
the content between.

Neal wrote:

> Remember, all elements are either empty - which means they do not affect
> other content, but stand alone - or have open and close tags and affect
> the content between.

Many closing tags are optional though. e.g. </p>, </li>, </td>.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me  ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Now Playing ~ ./scorpions_-_winds_of_change.ogg

"kate.simpson" <kate.simpson@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:HdATc.1100$49.314@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com:

> I wouldn't have looked at the doctype...

That's obvious, as you keep telling people that
their websites are 'good', when they are not.

> And *you* are *not* invited to critique *me*.

And you have no choice - this is Usenet.

> Perhaps you could use your powers of observation for *GooD*.

You should learn how to post properly - specifically,
stop top-posting.

> g
>
> "Hywel" <hyweljenkins@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b87e56f55e42498989891@news.individual.net... 

--
Dave Patton
Canadian Coordinator, Degree Confluence Project
http://www.confluence.org/
My website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/

In article <HdATc.1100$49.314@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>, kate.simpson
says...
> "Hywel" <hyweljenkins@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b87e56f55e42498989891@news.individual.net... 

> I wouldn't have looked at the doctype...

Then how can you tell if the site has "no errors"?


> And *you* are *not* invited to critique *me*.

I wouldn't dream of it.


> Perhaps you could use your powers of observation for *GooD*.

You mean like you do - telling people that their sites are good when
they're clearly not, rather than telling them the truth?

--
Hywel

http://sponsorhywel.org.uk/

Quoth the raven kate.simpson:

> I wouldn't have looked at the doctype...

It's become rather obvious that you only look at the "face" of a web
site offered for critique. A good critique is not only about how
pretty it is; it's about usability, accessibility, conformance to
standards, cross-browser rendering, search engine optimization, and so on.

After looking at your own site, http://www.ginae.us/ it is obvious
that you don't understand all of this.

<http://www.htmlhelp.com/cgi-bin/val...r />
nings=yes>
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...stern+Europe%29>

..20 errors, and this is after selecting a character encoding
override, because you don't have one.

> And *you* are *not* invited to critique *me*.

When you give false hopes, yes it is.

> Perhaps you could use your powers of observation for *GooD*.

Perhaps you could use your powers of observation to learn:
how to give a real critique
how to write proper pages yourself
not to top-post

(For some reason, Dave's and Hywel's responses are not showing on my
news server, only the headings.)

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.