I have serious doubts about the competence of the author (designer) of this page:
<META content="text/html; charset=unicode" http-equiv=Content-Type>
The Content-Type (as well as all other HTML "attribute" values) should be in " quotes. It probably doesn't
hurt to have the http-equiv after the content, but it's odd. What is "unicode" charset? I've never seen it. According to the W3C validator, it's possibly legal, but not widely supported. You should be using UTF-8 if you need world-wide character support. Firefox says that the page is UTF-16LE (Little Endian -- reversed bytes). The validator doesn't seem to like it, and doesn't recognize any tag until I specify UTF-16 override. I wouldn't be surprised if some browsers (like IE) have trouble with it. Some browsers may just be ignoring the x00 bytes. Either change the "charset" to UTF-16 (or maybe UTF-16LE) or re-save the pages as UTF-8 or even Latin-1 (and update charset appropriately).
<DIV align=left>© 2007 Hucrest Community Church of God. All Rights
Reserved.<BR>Developed by <A
href="http:%5C%5Cwww.umpquawebdesign.com">Umpqua Web Design</A></DIV></TD>
I would suggest using © rather than hardcoding a non-ASCII symbol. It's better to use such "HTML entities" because they will display correctly no matter what page character encoding (charset) you use -- you can change from (say) Latin-1 to UTF-8 without having to edit and re-save the page. %5C is the
backslash \ -- why in the world are backslashes being used for a URL? They should have just coded // and left it at that. Right now the link doesn't work because it comes out
http://www.hucrestcog.org/\\www.umpquawebdesign.com (the http:// wasn't seen, so a browser adds your domain to the beginning).
The image map code at the very bottom of the listing appears to apply to the top of the page. I would suggest that the code should be up near the top of the <body>, and that a title= attribute be used for each <area> so you can see what it is when you hover over it (I think title= will work with maps). I hope you didn't pay too much for this site's design work -- the code is atrocious! They might have used some very cheap or old page generator (MSHTML?) that doesn't play by the rules. Sorry to be so negative, but I can only shake my head in dismay at what passes for website coding! Despite all the problems with the code, it's still displaying fairly well with Firefox (except for the header graphics being a little messed up on the history and beliefs pages). I'm not sure why the intended CSS styling is not being applied (text.css plus style attributes) -- maybe try at least declaring the charset properly (or changing to UTF-8)
and fixing all the tag attributes with " around them and see if the behavior changes. In any case, throw the pages against the W3C validator (
http://validator.w3.org) and fix the reported problems, and somewhere along the line it will probably start looking better in all browsers. The CSS file appears to have been written in Latin-1, while the rest of the page is 16 bit Unicode -- that may be why the CSS is ignored. Re-saving the pages as either Latin-1 or UTF-8 might fix that problem.
To elaborate on what @scanman20 said, never use a word processor (e.g., MS Word) to edit a page, or to cut and paste text from one into an HTML page editor. Just too many goofy things can come along for the ride. Use a flat file text editor (ViM, Notepad++, or in a pinch, plain old Notepad), or at least a real (and up to date) WYSIWYG HTML page editor (Dreamweaver, Page Mason, even Expression Web). However, it doesn't look like using a word processor is at the heart of all the problems these pages have.
