There are some things I would like write and discuss about, but I still need to think how to start. I hope to write something about it later this weekend. Some links:
I very much like the logo design. Why did you use a different design for your favicon? The homepage seems rather empty, perhaps even lonely.
I am disappointed to see such a narrow width. I realize that resizing will widen the page accordingly, but why start with it so narrow? I've seen this trend on ALA and Zeldman's own site, and I don't like it. The entire page uses only a third of my available width.
The base font size is just right - I have no need to do text resizing.
The markup is nice and clean, as expected. Why not use the copyright symbol © instead of (c)?
I think it's an excellent example of adapting a graphic to the rather restrictive favicon format, which is a mere 16x16 px. I've seen too many sites just resizing their regular logo, or, even worse, a large, detailed photo.
Now, the Limpid logo has a very simple (and very elegant) geometrical shape, so it might work as a favicon too, but I'd still consider leaving it a square. The colors are distinctive enough to separate the favicon from other sites, i.e. tabs, and to associate it with Limpid.
Looks excellent, as expected. My only doubts are with the benefits and appropriateness of using xml:lang to mark up foreign (in your case English) words. I would only use it for foreign words that need to be pronounced in their native tongue, or in any language different than that of the document. This is not the case with Limpid, since it will/should be pronounced in Dutch when read on a Dutch language site. A valid example of using xml:lang would be for the emphasized words in the sentence:
Karate consists of the two Japanese words kara and te, meaning empty and hand respectively.
Plus Limpid sounds more or less the same in English and Dutch anyway, right? And just imagine how many bytes you'll be able to shave off :)
Exiting definition list mode...
Nothing to add that the previous two didn't cover already with respect to markup.
If I may though..
It's a bit tricky with the favicon. But perhaps Arthur can make a 32*32 PNG, which displays the logo instead of what we have now. Only browser support may be an issue than.
I like the idea about the background pattern, we certainly need something like that and it doesn't cost that much time :-). The design we have now, is almost entirely created by me (no graphics), since Arthur was rather busy and I had some free time.
We only have the domain for e-mail use right now, since getting costumers isn't really a problem.
For Lars and other people who like to know something about the background: today it's official....
Apart from the lack of white space between the paragraphs it reads fairly well.