Yes, that's a lovely webpage...
I've been reminded why I should avoid critiquing the HTML of others without first being invited. Last night I was asked to change a few apache records to reflect changes to a certain sports club, as their website had changed. Easily done.

Being a club with which I was once involved, and of which I still have fond memories, I then proceeded to their website to check out the new design. It looked very crisp and usable. "Good," I thought. Then I looked at the HTML.

I should be used to it by now, but bad HTML still causes me to gasp in horror and back away in fright. How do you expect anything to parse your code when you close your head tag after your body tag? What's that style information doing in the middle of the document? Why are you closing that HTML comment twice? Don't you even know about the W3C validator?

So I dutifully wrote a very polite and helpful response that while the website does happen to render correctly on my browser, it could do with a few touch-ups in the realm of standards compliance. This morning I received the following response.

Hi Paul, interesting about the format of the style tag. The current form:

<style type-'type/css'>

works in all browsers I have, but if I change it to your suggested version:

<style type="text/css">

I get a blank page. If I just change the single quotes to double quotes, it is blank. If I just change the dash to a = it is blank. So I ended up leaving it as it was.

I don't really know how to respond to that.