"Martin J. Lambert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/10/2004 11:28:07 PM:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Thanks for the clarification. However, I still don't understand WHY a
> > page requires a doctype declaration (in my case HTML 4.0
> > transitional) just to make a font-size style cascade from b
Peter Goddard wrote on 04/10/2004 11:10:07 PM:
> I would recommend you read this short article.
> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/doctype/
> IMHO the setting of a DOCTYPE is an essential step in the migration
> to standards based web development. You have a valid point that if
> you want to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification. However, I still don't understand WHY a
> page requires a doctype declaration (in my case HTML 4.0
> transitional) just to make a font-size style cascade from body
> through to td.
I believe it's simply that quirks mode follows older brows
Title: RE: [WSG] doctypes, quirks/standards mode and positioning
Dear Johnathan
I would recommend you read this short article.
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/doctype/
IMHO the setting of a DOCTYPE is an essential step in the migration to standards based web development. You have a
"Patrick H. Lauke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/10/2004 10:54:20
AM:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > OK, Consider this very simple HTML document:
> ...
> > How could leaving out the doctype make such a definite difference to
such
> > a simple page?
>
> The crucial part of my answer was: "
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, Consider this very simple HTML document:
...
How could leaving out the doctype make such a definite difference to such
a simple page?
The crucial part of my answer was: "If you know for sure that the markup
*is going to be invalid*"
The example you provide is of vali
/www.alistapart.com/articles/doctype/
> http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?DOCTYPE
>
> Chris
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Nando
> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 8:12 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: R
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Nando
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 8:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] doctypes, quirks/standards mode and positioning
I'll be reworking the markup and the layout approach they've used ...
it's just that i anticipate they'll have a
I'll be reworking the markup and the layout approach they've used ...
it's just that i anticipate they'll have a reason for using the
doctype ... cuz it doesn't jump up there by itself, that i'll need to
intelligently and authoritively discuss with them. Much of the code is
actually generated out o
6:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [WSG] doctypes, quirks/standards mode and positioning
Hi all,
I've been trying to get my head around the use of doctypes and their
eventual influence on layouts via whether they force the browser into
standards mode or not.
What i've come to so far
Neerav wrote:
so go for html 4 transitional validation if the clients tables will
always be invalid
If you know for sure that the markup is going to be invalid, why bother
with a doctype at all? It's a bit like putting a "may contain nuts"
sticker on a bag of peanuts...
Patrick H. Lauke
___
The rule of thunb is that if you're going to use XHTML, than you have to
get it 100% correct because XHTML is much more strict and unforgiving of
little errors than html 4
so go for html 4 transitional validation if the clients tables will
always be invalid
Neerav Bhatt
http://www.bhatt.id.au
Hi all,
I've been trying to get my head around the use of doctypes and their
eventual influence on layouts via whether they force the browser into
standards mode or not.
What i've come to so far is if you use tables mixed with css for
positioning you're better off staying with an HTML 4 doctype (
13 matches
Mail list logo