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: If you know for
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
[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 browser
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
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 body
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 reason for using the
doctype ... cuz
[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 valid
, 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 reason for using the
doctype ... cuz it doesn't jump up
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
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 argument I was swayed by was that XHTML was more future-proof, since in
the future everyone will use XML (and drive atomic cars). This means that
the designer coming after me won't have to do as much work to do on the next
redesign (which is especially good if I'm the next designer).
I
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
