Look at my site

[Ryan Fitton]

http://uk.geocities.com/ryan_fitton

[mburt]

Emm... get FrontPage and Internet Explorer? FrontPage possibly produces the worst/most invalid HTML code I've seen (e.g Microsoft Theme headers). It's okay, but... 87 errors in the validator? That's well, horrible.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...m/ryan_fitton/

[Jack]

Looks like your off to a good start... User friendly and very clean.

Keep it up dude!

[mburt]

Yep, good if you're just starting out, but you'll need to standarize your page, and make the layout more browser friendly (not to IE only).

[tech_support]

Isn't it 92 errors?

[Moglizorz]

Emm... get FrontPage and Internet Explorer? FrontPage possibly produces the worst/most invalid HTML code I've seen (e.g Microsoft Theme headers). It's okay, but... 87 errors in the validator? That's well, horrible.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...m/ryan_fitton/

Don't use that validator, it is rubbish :P
Says my site has 17 errors, here is one error I got from that:

Error Line 2 column 11: there is no attribute "SRC".

<frame src="navbar/index.html" scrolling="no" name="nav">

It didn't like "src=" for some reason.

This thing even found 47 errors on the Google.com homepage. That's stupid :P

[Twey]

It is the definitive W3C validator, and checks against the specified DOCTYPE. It's practically infallible

Error Line 2 column 11: there is no attribute "SRC".

Generally means that you've used frames in a non-frameset DOCTYPE. The <frame> element is only valid in a page using the dedicated frameset DOCTYPE (although if your design relies on frames, you might want to rethink it).

This thing even found 47 errors on the Google.com homepage. That's stupid :P

No it isn't. It's common knowledge that the Google homepage is poorly formed: Google say it's in order to save bandwidth.

[mburt]

Yes, and the whole "Google without validation" issue has been dealt with before.