On 1/5/06, Leslie Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to know about a site that is XHTML 1.0 Transitional; what would > be the purpose in that, and would you say that should be served as > application-type/xhtml+xml, or text/html? A lot of the reading I've done > has been rather confusing, particularly when I go and see sites served > as XHTML 1.0 Transitional and text/html. Does that mean those sites are > 'violating the validation law'? > > What's a person to do? When is it appropriate to use one of the XHTML DTDs > and when to use HTML 4.01, and what about those XHTML Transitional DTDs? I > guess I'm looking for a bit of a summarization & clarification of this > concept. >
Well, if you have a site that is XHTML 1.0 Transisitional served as text/html, and you like the way it looks, it works great, serves it purpose, etc, then what you really have is an HTML 4 site, because that's how the browsers are processing it and that's how the css is handling it. The validator is the only one that thinks the page is XHTML. So you can just as well change the doctype to HTML 4 and you'll see that visually, nothing changes. Trust me, I've done it. It isn't to say that it's wrong to serve XHTML 1.0 as text/html, and I still do that, sometimes, but what I do think is wrong is having an XHTML 1.0 page, served as text/html, that has validation errors. That is, it's wrong in principal, obviously the page still works. So as to spare everyone a lengthy discussion of this, there's a lot of information in the archives on the subject of XHTML as text/html. Back to the main discussion... -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
