> Why do we care if Google understands the ligature? 3x4 > doesn't seem like a keyword I would optimize for when it > comes to SEO... > There are lots of terms that might not seem like a keyword you would optimise for - until you get a client for whom it makes a difference. There's a clear SEO connection between 61x91.5 and the most popular posters in the world (see Wordtracker). One of my clients in the very cut-throat online poster selling market benefits from this (so don't tell anyone).
This doesn't even touch on Dmitry's point that Google ignores × - although I did get a bit more joy with &, which would seem to back up Patrick's point: > It's the usual chicken/egg problem: once most people > start using the correct way, Google will have to adapt > its algorithms. But many authors will be wary of using it > until Google does it first. Rinse, repeat. So let's assume that the more semantic, valid sites we get out there, the better Google will index them and refine its algorithms. That takes us back to what this list is more concerned with: standards, and thus validity, semantic code and accessibility. I'd still like to know if using character entity references and/or unicode for symbols and special characters will actually convey web content more clearly to people who use screen readers. BTW, there's a nice list of character entity references, with name, character, unicode code point, HTML Standard and description at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_XML_and_HTML_character_entity_reference s. Ricky ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
