It seems to validate fine as XHTML 1.1 for me: http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A//testdrive.fueladvance.c om/Default.aspx
And that's the doctype on all the pages. I'm getting kinda confused as to how we're getting different results here... -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of diona kidd Sent: Wednesday, 23 March 2005 11:59 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Review: testdrive.fueladvance.com Seems to validate as XHTML 1.0 strict...maybe that was the doc type you had in mind when coding? http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Ftestdrive.fueladvance.com %2FDefault.aspx&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=XHTML+1.0 +Strict&verbose=1 On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 19:28 -0500, David Laakso wrote: > On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:34:38 +1100, Tatham Oddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Without out taking up too much of your time, it'd be great if you could > > take > > a look at http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/ > [...] > Nice, clean, and simple. Setting font-size 0.9em on the body is doing a > number in IE on zoom. To avoid that bug use %, preferably > 100% or 100.01%. Those of us who can't remember our 40th birthday party > will be grateful. There seems to be no alt text for the title, and the > navigation breaks a bit too early on zoom. There's a need to correct some > HTML errors. > > Tatham Oddie > Best, > David > > > ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ****************************************************** ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
