Once I forced the validator to try and call it HTML 4.01 Transitional, it spat out the following.
- Well yes, it doen't meet HTML 4.01 Transitional specs by a long shot... but seeing as it doesn't declare itself as HTML 4.01 that's hardly a problem is it?
I'd very much like to see the site lose the tables and font tags, make use of CSS, and generally have valid markup without horrible MS tags.
The font tags are pretty unnecessary and could be removed in place of a simple CSS addition, however table tags have many valid uses which CSS2 can't come close to reproducing correctly, and seeing as CSS3 is years away from being W3C recommended and then implemented, and even more years away from being implemented correctly, I'd hardly consider table tags to be something to be removed unnecesarily. Incidentally your layout has about a dozen minor flaws when validated with the W3C validator, the most obvous being the lack of a type attribute for the style tag - not much good using CSS if a browser doesn't know what it is is it? (Yes, I'm aware that most browsers will assume it's CSS, but still...).
From a look at the layout it seems to me that the front page is changed by hand, which means declaring it as a strict format instead of allowing browsers to use quirks-mode parsing would mean any errors done when adding a new entry could make the site behave very strangely for some browsers. Surely it's better to leave it undeclared and simply append some CSS to make the markup cleaner - and adding new entries easier.
