I dont buy that Sarah. Any search engine spider that doesnt read XHTML isnt on eof the majors and is therefore hardly worth the worry. In fact I'd suggest, given Google's attitude to the minor search engines, that maybe you're better off that way cos all those link farms and portals wouldnt be able to index you. If they can't index you, google rates you higher.
Or is my understanding of google out of date again? Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia Adobe Certified Advanced ColdFusion Developer AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com ColdFusion, PHP, ASP, ASP.NET hosting from AUD$15/month On 12/6/06, Sarah Barry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > and yet planetocean in its December SEO book still recommends sticking with > html because: > quote: > > "Some search engine spiders have had difficulty processing the XHTML DOCTYPE > in the past, so we recommend that you use the HTML 4.01 Transitional > DOCTYPE, ..." > > I did some research (some time ago admittedly) that XHTML delivered as > text/html was very little different to straightforward html and what > mattered was if the mime type was application/xhtml+xml > > ciao > s > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
