While using dillo to check some pages for AnyBrowser-friendliness, I've encountered the warning inserted whenever a <meta http-equiv="refresh" ...> tag is used. I interpreted this as meaning that the HTML I'd written was in some way wrong, and I should find another way to achieve the same effect. The warning says: This page uses the NON-STANDARD meta refresh tag. The HTML 4.01 SPEC\n" " (sec 7.4.4) recommends explicitly to avoid it. I checked that part of the HTML spec to see exactly what it said, and whether it suggested any better alternatives. However, all that section has to say about the use of "refresh" is: ( http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#h-7.4.4 ) Note. Some user agents support the use of META to refresh the current page after a specified number of seconds, with the option of replacing it by a different URI. Authors should not use this technique to forward users to different pages, as this makes the page inaccessible to some users. Instead, automatic page forwarding should be done using server-side redirects. My understanding of that paragraph is that it's only recommending against redirection, in which the refresh tag specifies that a different page should be loaded after the timeout. It might additionally mean that it's only discouraged for "instant" (ie. delay=0) redirection. OTOH, refreshing the same page (which is what I'm trying to do with the page that I'm writing) should be OK. In this case, shouldn't dillo only complain if the "content" part of the tag contains a "URL=" (even if it won't handle the refresh without the aid of the meta-refresh patch)? I can write the necessary trivial patch to insert such a check if people agree that it's The Right Thing, but I thought I'd better check that I've interpreted the spec properly (and am reading the right bit of it) before I do so. Glyn