<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Rob Hammond &#187; w3c - Rob Hammond - SEO, Perl, etc</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rob-hammond.co.uk/tag/w3c/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rob-hammond.co.uk</link>
	<description>SEO, Perl, etc</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:44:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Valid HTML is bad SEO</title>
		<link>http://rob-hammond.co.uk/valid-html-is-bad-seo</link>
		<comments>http://rob-hammond.co.uk/valid-html-is-bad-seo#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:16:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>rob</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[seo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[html]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[w3c]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rob-hammond.co.uk/?p=83</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;ve been amazed at how many SEO firms I&#8217;ve seen recently touting &#8220;W3C valided HTML&#8221; as one of their core SEO recommendations &#8211; a fundamental misconception I thought had disappeared years ago. It&#8217;s an easy mistake to make, but linking it directly with SEO is plain wrong, bad advice for SEOs to be giving to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rob-hammond.co.uk/valid-html-is-bad-seo/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

