On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, aardvark wrote: > > except the way we're doing it *is* standards compliant > > to 1.0... or 1.1... or one of them... see, to me, this is like using HTML 3.2 instead of HTML4.01 because its easier. why the double standard? > SEs regularly traverse pages i've built with 302s... they got it with the 301's there(obviously) too.