Validating webpages OK. So you don't want to test your webpages in every browser [heaven forbid you might download NS4 or opera], so what can you do to garauntee that you're at least going in the right direction? HTML is a clearly laid out standard. You may like to think that you can do whatever you please, but there are some limitations to it. All of my webpages currently validate as HTML4.01 compliant, Bobby AAA Approved, US508 Approved, and CSS compliant. That's what the links on the bottom of some of the pages are. If your webpage validates for at least a few of the above, you're doing well, and I approve of your webpages. If they validate on all 4, then your webpages will work in all browsers, and even if they're fugly, or lack functionality in some browsers [NS4], then at least they'll work. You know, it's that thing where everyone can buy your products. It means that the disabled/blind can read them and navigate them without problem, and if you're displaying some of those links at the bottom of your page, then you're also showing a level of competence that a great many web designers out there don't posess. There are some things, though, that do make a difference and can, IMHO, justify non-compliance. It isn't possible, for example, to have a page that is HTML3.2 compliant and Bobby AAA approved. AAA approval from Bobby requires you to specify the language your webpages are in explicitly, but HTML3.2 doesn't support the LANG= attribute of the HTML tag. It is my considered opinion that BOTH of the standards groups are wrong on this. You can glean the language of a webpage from the DOCTYPE tag as well as the HTML tag. And part of HTML is that if something is there that's not recognised, it's ignored. That's part of the graceful degradation that's implicit in HTML. But in order to validate officially, all my pages are therefore HTML4.01. Anyways. Conclusions? Run your pages through a validator. If you're using non-standard tags, you'd better have a good reason, or some browsers simply won't work right. Bobby, by the way, is commonly considered to be painfully anal. This is, in some cases, true. So be it. It's possible to be at least one or two A compliant without too much effort [just add the silly Summary attributes to your tables, and keep Bobby, and both blind people with browsers that support it, happy] I know full well that "most browser aren't HTML compliant either!". But remember that they're "not HTML compliant proper" because they tend to support non-standard tags. Using IE's colored scrollbars should be a hanging offence, for reasons detailed in another writing here. If, OTOH, your page only has tags that are officially part of the HTML standard, then browsers won't have a problem. A note on DOCTYPES > I realise I should know, but spelling out what tags are for > and how to use them would be really helpful (to me). All they are is a single line at the top of a file that describes exactly what standard a web page adheres to. That's all. Most times it doesn't matter worth a damn, as HTML4.01 is backwardly compatible with all of the previous standards, so if your web browser knows how to read some of the modern, /en vogue/ HTML stuff, then it'll probably also be able to read the older stuff [it's a tag. It's always been a tag, and hopefully it always will be a tag] As a direct result of this, though, in order for your web page to be validated, it needs to be able to say which standard it's sticking to. I'm too lazy to care very much, so all of my webpages either go with Which is the simplest one you can reasonably use. It has tables, but no javascript. That's where we're aiming with that one [Your CV would be a good one to do in 3.2]. If you want JavaScript, the easiest one to go for is: Which is slightly more lax than the usual 4.01, but the difference is negligible. Can you see yet why I think Bobby are wrong on why you should have to put the LANG= attribute in the HTML tag?