] transitional vs. strict
On Apr 30, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Joseph Taylor wrote:
stick with HTML 4.01 Strict while the work is completed on (X)HTML5
IMHO (and given the depth and breadth of the replies to my original post I'm
feeling very humble right now, as well as extremely grateful to you all) - I
do
Joseph Taylor wrote:
Great information and clarification everyone.
If anyone hasn't taken an underlying message away from the conversation
so far, it is to use HTML 4.01 Strict for you web documents when possible...
I wonder where you're getting that message from, to be honest...
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Quirks mode is the best mode for the old bugger known as IE6,
IMO,
Care to clarify why, exactly?
I listed a few reasons down this page some time ago...
http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_16.html
...and nothing seems to have changed
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Hassan Schroeder
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One argument against the use of transitional doctypes is that they're
now more than eight years old which makes them about half as old as
the Web itself. Do you want to base your site on what was status quo
half
Patrick,
To clarify the below statement:
It's really aimed at people who are newer to this stuff and who may be
confused/ignorant about doctypes and/or just using whatever doctype
Dreamweaver defaults to or whatever, after reading through both Thierry
and Russ's example links and thinking
On Apr 30, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Joseph Taylor wrote:
stick with HTML 4.01 Strict while the work is completed on (X)HTML5
IMHO (and given the depth and breadth of the replies to my original
post I'm feeling very humble right now, as well as extremely grateful
to you all) - I do think that
Andrew,
Of course its based on taste. Personally I prefer the stricter coding
rules of XHTML, but I've found that WYSIWYG editors for the CMSs I
produce for clients are far happier in a plain ol' HTML environment.
Its probably the editor I usebut none are perfect!
My own site is XHTML
To throw water into hot oil. Choosing transitional or strict will, in
Gecko browser, determine whether your browser activates
almost-standards-mode or standards-mode respectively [1].
[1] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/
--
Ca Phun Ung
Web: http://yelotofu.com
I'm finding myself having to justify my work methods to a boss who
has almost zero interest in usability, accessibility or standards.
(Though I have managed to get into the long-term plan: ...website
that is compliant with W3C standards and Section 508...)
One question that has been raised
Andrew Maben wrote:
I'm finding myself having to justify my work methods to a boss who has
almost zero interest in usability, accessibility or standards. (Though I
have managed to get into the long-term plan: ...website that is
compliant with W3C standards and Section 508...)
One question
The transitional doctype was created to simply allow an easier
transition between doctypes as people updated their sites to newer,
more advanced doctypes.
In the past it meant changing HTML3.2 pages to HTML 4.1.
More recently it meant moving towards and XHTML 1x strict doctypes from
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Pages that validate as strict are superior to transitional because
___.
There's not really a clear-cut answer. Again, speaking personally, I
find that using strict helps in my quality assurance of other authors'
work, because strict removed most of the
Joseph Taylor wrote:
For example, I don't use the strict doctype because, its better, cooler
etc. I use it because it makes IE6 more predictable as the traditional
doctype puts the browser into quirks mode which makes for a few more css
display oddities.
Hah, blissfully forgot about that
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Joseph Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 12:32 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
It'll be a tough argument to make to a non-nerd. Your argument might
Pages that validate as strict are superior to transitional because
Because the strict doctype helps us follow one of the principles of best
practice - to remove all presentation from markup.
To do this fully, we should aim to remove all presentational elements and
attributes from our markup.
For example, I don't use the strict doctype because, its better, cooler
etc. I use it because it makes IE6 more predictable as the traditional
doctype puts the browser into quirks mode which makes for a few more css
display oddities.
This is not entirely correct. There is a confusion here
I have never seen the differences between the two doc types spelled
out like this. When I was learning CSS our instructor taught us to use
transitional-- less problems she said. I guess I fell into the belief
that strict was for those who knew CSS forward and backward That
strict was unobtainable
Pages that validate as strict are superior to transitional because
___.
It is important to serve pages that validate as strict because
___.
...validation is a quality metric, and we want a quality web presence.
Given that you're dealing with someone that has no
I've often referenced this blog post
http://www.graphicpush.com/index.php?id=49
I think your answer is there.
Good luck!
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe:
: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
Pages that validate as strict are superior to transitional because
___.
It is important to serve pages that validate as strict because
___.
...validation is a quality metric, and we want a quality web presence.
Given that you're
Ben Buchanan wrote:
Pages that validate as strict are superior to transitional because
___.
It is important to serve pages that validate as strict because
___.
...validation is a quality metric, and we want a quality web presence.
Given that you're dealing with
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Andrew Maben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm finding myself having to justify my work methods to a boss who has
almost zero interest in usability, accessibility or standards. (Though I
have managed to get into the long-term plan: ...website that is compliant
with
Great information and clarification everyone.
If anyone hasn't taken an underlying message away from the conversation
so far, it is to use HTML 4.01 Strict for you web documents when possible...
Joseph R. B. Taylor
/Designer / Developer/
--
Sites by Joe,
Hey Dory,
There are probably more detailed outline of all the differences but the ones
listed are a start.
If you are after strict validation, then the W3C's HTML validator is your
friend. When you test a document using the tool it will tell you what is
invalid and (even though the explanations
One argument against the use of transitional doctypes is that they're
now more than eight years old which makes them about half as old as
the Web itself. Do you want to base your site on what was status quo
half a Web lifetime ago?
Uh, aren't the transitional doctypes pretty much, er, well,
@Ben Buchanan: Are the points you raised true or were you mentioning them
as things to feed bottom-line oriented people? The point I'm most interested
in is this one: If they're an SEO type, mention that valid sites tend to
index more consistently in search engines (validation doesn't
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of russ - maxdesign
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 2:43 PM
To: Web Standards Group
Subject: Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
For example, I don't use the strict doctype because, its better, cooler
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
On top of using a correct Doctype, authors need to make sure that
nothing (e.g., XML prolog or HTML comment) comes before the DTD or it
will send IE into Quirks mode.
Quirks mode is the best mode for the old bugger known as IE6, IMO,
which is why I make sure to always
28 matches
Mail list logo
