Perhaps you spend a little more time with syntax and a little less time spouting about perfect "semantic" markup.
I'll spend my time however I please, thank you for your concern.
URI: http://www.salford.ac.uk/
"This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict!"
<li><a href="http://shop.salford.ac.uk";>Online shop</a></ul>
Oops!
Ah, thank you for the usual Chewbacca defense...when a discussion on standards doesn't go the way you like, just point the validator at one of the other person's sites and point at their errors. The fact that one of my team (oh yes, team...or did you think I was the only one working on a large University site?) borked a recent change obviously diminishes any of the points I made in the discussion...*sigh*
What's even more laughable is you're sending 1.0 Strict to the validator as text/html because, as everyone knows, even though the W3C validator understands XTHML perfectly, it does not send the correct Accept header when it makes the request for your page.
Laughable...of course. Again, as per spec HTML compatible XHTML 1.0 Strict may be sent as text/html. Sure, let me go and compensate for the validator not sending the correct Accept header by sniffing out its specific user agent.
So, let's see: IE is broken, and to hell with it; W3C validator is sending out incorrect headers, so need to compensate. Got it.
-- Patrick H. Lauke _____________________________________________________ re�dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com
****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
