Hi
At ALA http://alistapart.com/articles/doctype/
It's about using the right doctype, rather than a background on them - but may help out.
Cheers James
JW wrote:
*****************************************************Uhhh this project requires rebuilding the site from tables to css and to xhtml strict. I can feel my nightmare next to me already.
I do not know why W3C validator is validating those codes as error when it looks perfectly fine to me. Unless the codings are very different from transitional DTD?
2morrow I am going to spend my entire day studying this XHTML strict.
With Regards, Jaime Wong ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SODesires Design Team http://www.sodesires.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -------Original Message-------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 02/25/04 02:59:21 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] DTDS and which to use?
I've found for new sites without a lot of forms or pre-existing content, building to XHTML1.0 Strict makes sure I have a disciplined, well structured site that quite easily validates and styles with CSS. I have to keep applying discipline to rid myself of old sloppy coding habits. Validating to XHTML1.0 strict is like my childhood piano teacher sitting next to me with a ruler rapping me on the knuckles when I got my scales wrong. A pain in the neck (well actually knuckles) but splendid way to learn the discipline required to do the job properly.
However re-building an existing site to XHTML1.0 Strict is a nightmare. It's far too tight a standard to build to, and not enough benefits to justify the effort involved, unless the client's willing to pay me to do it. (Haven't found one that cares that much yet). In fact for one site, the best I could do was make sure it validated to HTML4.01 transitional. But at least it validated which is more than it did before! I'll tighten it up next time around.
Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com
*****************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*****************************************************
.
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*****************************************************
