[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > http://www.constructweb.com/seo/ > > It validates! - anything else that be suggested from the css/html (maybe > SEO if it's not too OT) perspective that would make this page even more > web standards compliant? > > Thanks > Neal > > >
As far as the Web Standards stuff is concerned: 1/ The document is valid so you're good to go on that. 2/ It uses CSS instead of tables for layout so you're good to go on that, too. 3/ Whether it is properly structured and semantically marked up-- I'll leave that to others, and the other list you posted on, to answer. 4/ Works in any Web browser. Hmm, guess that might depend on how one defines "works" and exactly what means by "any." As far as what "works" my opinion is, your page should: -- make sense with css disabled -- not let the header links become hidden from view with font-scaling. -- not allow heading h1 to become hidden from view with font-scaling. -- not set primary content less than user default -- make sense with images disabled -- A thin red line and a salmon-color ampersand forthcoming. http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
