Man that site sucks. I'm going to be spending way too much time there :)

Such simple xhtml errors to fix too. Why are they not correct on a blog tool that claims valid xhtml?

what page did you test balupton, out of curiousity?

http://sitescore.silktide.com/index.php?node=716984&form_refresh_single=0&form=1&form1=1&f1_url=b2evolution.net&f1_ok=OK&taosIgnoreCache=1&pagetree=&taosIgnoreCache=1

Then go and read the first few parts of the report, the section british legal requirements has a button to show where the standards failed.

so to answer my question, you tested http://b2evolution.net

thank you, thats all I wanted :)

(ive no control over it so its useless for me to read whats broke)

I stopped worrying about the forums so much since phpBB is inheritantly broke, and the nature of posts is that they will inevitably break again what might have been fixed previously.

Personally, I have to agree with you in that AT THE VERY least, the main part of the site needs to be valid (that part of it which is actually running b2evolution). Which its not. :roll:

The main validation issue is the HOSTING links and the AUNTIES TREASURES link
Fix the URL's ampersands and it's virtually sweet for transitional.