Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
Could be technical if you want to allow your pages to be parsed with XML parsers. I've done that in the past because I made some software to fetch data from my site. -Thom From: Andrew Maben Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 4:14 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] 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 think that given the current state of the art this is the best approach, at least for me. But, indeed, let's not get into XHTML vs. HTML - I understand and respect the XHTML proponents' viewpoint, but in the end isn't it a choice based on personal taste? Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
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 __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
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 since then. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
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 a Web lifetime ago? Uh, aren't the transitional doctypes pretty much, er, well, exactly, as old as their corresponding strict doctypes? :-) True enough! I said that was a potential argument; I didn't say it was a *good* argument. =) In all seriousness, it sounds like the OP's boss is unconvinced by rational arguments, so why not try some irrational ones? -- Philip http://NikitaTheSpider.com/ Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
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 about everyone on this list who may be using XHTML served as text/html simply because its newer combined with my own learning over the years and my statement is based on: Lowest common denominator - HTML MimeType issues (IE and application-xml) Both of these points can be dug into further and turned into another HTML vs XHTML conversationbut lets not. So to re-state my previous statement in its new publicized version: If you're new to doctypes and want to play it safe, or are learning css etc, stick with HTML 4.01 Strict while the work is completed on (X)HTML5. Sure, you can use XHTML as it exists in any of its flavors if you wish, but if you aren't aware of little issues involvedwhy? Please, again I'm not trying to start another HTML vs. XHTML thread I swear. Joseph R. B. Taylor /Designer / Developer/ -- Sites by Joe, LLC /Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design/ Phone: (609) 335-3076 Fax: (866) 301-8045 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Patrick H. Lauke wrote: 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 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***begin:vcard fn:Joseph Taylor n:Taylor;Joseph org:Sites by Joe, LLC adr:;;408 Route 47 South;Cape May Court House;NJ;08210;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Designer / Developer tel;work:609-335-3076 tel;fax:886-301-8045 tel;home:609-886-9660 tel;cell:609-335-3076 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://sitesbyjoe.com version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: [WSG] 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 think that given the current state of the art this is the best approach, at least for me. But, indeed, let's not get into XHTML vs. HTML - I understand and respect the XHTML proponents' viewpoint, but in the end isn't it a choice based on personal taste? Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
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 1.0 Strict. All the commercial work I do is in HTML 4.01 Strict. I haven't done a site with a transitional doctype since 2005 when I had first learned about the doctypes and the role they play in the rendering of your documents by browsers. In the end, any of the doctypes, strict or transitional, will allow a user to view the information on a page. No one has been able to prove hands-down the best way to go one way or the other. IMO HTML 4.01 is now a closed book. Its safe It is what it is and its clear that eventually HTML5 will step in. I feel the XHTML has a more haphazard future in the fact that there are a couple branches running - perhaps someone could quickly clarify the status/future of: XHTML 1.0 XHTML 1.1 XHTML 2 XHTML5 Joseph R. B. Taylor /Designer / Developer/ -- Sites by Joe, LLC /Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design/ Phone: (609) 335-3076 Fax: (866) 301-8045 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew Maben wrote: 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 given the current state of the art this is the best approach, at least for me. But, indeed, let's not get into XHTML vs. HTML - I understand and respect the XHTML proponents' viewpoint, but in the end isn't it a choice based on personal taste? Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***begin:vcard fn:Joseph Taylor n:Taylor;Joseph org:Sites by Joe, LLC adr:;;408 Route 47 South;Cape May Court House;NJ;08210;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Designer / Developer tel;work:609-335-3076 tel;fax:886-301-8045 tel;home:609-886-9660 tel;cell:609-335-3076 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://sitesbyjoe.com version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
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 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
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 that has been raised is if site X has pages that validate as transitional, why do you have to produce pages that validate as strict? Personally, I find that it's actually no more difficult to validate to strict, so my answer would be along those lines...but obviously don't know your particular situation (e.g. lots of decentralised content authors, a heterogeneous team of authors with different skills, a hideous CMS WYSIWYG tool that outputs all sorts of rubbish, etc) 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 presentational elements/attributes, whose presence often points to the likelihood of inaccessible content. By running third-party pages through strict validation, I can instantly see if they stuck in font elements or the like. That is not to mean that it's not possible to make royally inaccessible pages in strict, mind...it just helps quickly identifying common old sources of problems from the HTML 4 days... It is important to serve pages that validate as strict because ___. Serving them as strict is irrelevant, in my mind. You could in fact still have transitional pages, just run them through the validator set to strict for the reason above. IMHO, of course. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
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 something else. Honestly, in the end there isn't too much difference other than allowing for some extra elements and attributes that are banned in strict, e.g. the target attribute for links, font tags etc... Strict is certainly the way all doctypes are supposed to be in an information utopia. However, transitional isn't going away. It'll be a tough argument to make to a non-nerd. Your argument might be better based in true facts and statistics vs. the good fight. 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. Accessibility falls on deaf ears frequently. Replace that argument with the case of cellphone users etc having an acceptable experience. Does your site work on a crappy phone? Usability should be a prime concern - perhaps the ultimate concern. Accessibility, standards - all these things are under the umbrella of usability. A truly usable site would be valid, using recommended standards and accessible to all. The zealots will argue to only use strict no matter what! Tell that to godaddy, yahoo or any of those other big companies using SiteBuilder to fill the web with a bunch of crap transitional documents. Your boss is a business man. If the dollars and cent of what you propose don't make sense - forget it. Make your future additions valid. Change one page on the site to a slimmer strict doctype and see if you can find some ways to show that one is superior, be it bandwidth, cellphone performance or whatever. Good luck! Joseph R. B. Taylor /Designer / Developer/ -- Sites by Joe, LLC /Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design/ Phone: (609) 335-3076 Fax: (866) 301-8045 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 that has been raised is if site X has pages that validate as transitional, why do you have to produce pages that validate as strict? To my embarrassment I don't have a ready answer - I realise that it's something that I've essentially taken on faith. Any one care to help fill in the blanks? Pages that validate as strict are superior to transitional because ___. It is important to serve pages that validate as strict because ___. Thanks in advance. Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***begin:vcard fn:Joseph Taylor n:Taylor;Joseph org:Sites by Joe, LLC adr:;;408 Route 47 South;Cape May Court House;NJ;08210;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Designer / Developer tel;work:609-335-3076 tel;fax:886-301-8045 tel;home:609-886-9660 tel;cell:609-335-3076 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://sitesbyjoe.com version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
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 presentational elements/attributes, whose presence often points to the likelihood of inaccessible content. By running third-party pages through strict validation, I can instantly see if they stuck in font elements or the like. Additionally: of course, presentational elements/attributes that fail validation as strict also point to an incomplete separation of content and presentation. This can cause major headaches when/if you want to make your same site/pages work across different media (print, mobile, etc). By doing a bit of additional work at the content entry / page creation stage (making sure it validates as strict), you can save a lot of time and cost later on by not having to develop a completely separate printer friendly page or a separate mobile version (though, of course, with mobile there's the argument that you may still need a separate, streamlined version of your site that only shows the content/features that are relevant to somebody visiting your site on the go - e.g. more important to have quick access to latest news, important contact phone numbers and travel directions to your physical offices, rather than a whole raft of pages devoted to the history of your company etc) And, of course, once presentation is reasonably separate from content, it can be less painful to move to a complete site reskin/refresh. Again, bit of extra work up front, lots of savings in the future. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
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 one. Another very strong point: more predictable = less time and money wasted on workarounds and CSS acrobatics. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
-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 be better based in true facts and statistics vs. the good fight. 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. I'm not sure about that point. I believe there are a few other DTDs that do *not* trigger Quirks mode in IE6: http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/ -- Regards, Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
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. How does the strict doctype help this? Here are some examples... Using the Transitional doctype, the following presentational ELEMENTS are allowed: - u - s and strike - center - font - basefont Using the strict doctype these are not allowed - they are invalid. Using the Transitional doctype, the following presentational ATTRIBUTES are allowed: - background and background-color attributes for body element. - align attribute on div, form, paragraph (p), and heading (h1...h6) elements - align, noshade, size, and width attributes on hr element - align, border, vspace, and hspace attributes on img and object elements - align attribute on legend and caption elements - align and background-color on table element - nowrap, bgcolor, width, height on td and th elements - bgcolor attribute on tr element - clear attribute on br element Using the strict doctype these are not allowed - they are invalid. With the transitional doctype inline elements and character strings are allowed in: - body - blockquote - form - noscript - Noframes Using the strict doctype these are not allowed. They are invalid. Why is it important to remove presentational elements and attributes from markup? Because presentational elements and attributes add weight to the page and make it harder for you to manage, change the presentation of the page at a later date. Thanks Russ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
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 between strict and transitional vs standards and quirks mode Strict and transitional are both correct doctypes. Quirks mode vs standards compliance mode is about whether a correct doctype is present or not. For example, if IE6 uses a full and complete doctype it will render in standards compliant mode - regardless of whether it uses a transitional or strict doctype. If IE6 uses no doctype then it will switch to quirks mode. You can see this in effect in the three examples below... In the first two examples, the box model is correct width. In the third example, when no doctype is used, IE switches to Quirks mode and the box model is rendered incorrectly. STRICT DOCTYPE http://maxdesign.com.au/jobs/boxmodel-strict.html TRANSITIONAL DOCTYPE http://maxdesign.com.au/jobs/boxmodel-transitional.html NO DOCTYPE http://maxdesign.com.au/jobs/boxmodel-none.html The last page will shew a box model that is much narrower than the other two. Thanks Russ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
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 for those of us who still refer to a css handbook at times and have a sense of dread with a new IE browser release. There are times when getting a page to work on all browsers and validate can be daunting enough just in transitional... Is this really all the difference between the two doctypes? If I print this out and place it beside the CSS handbook could I possibly obtain Strict validation? Thank you for posting this, Dory On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:36 PM, russ - maxdesign [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. How does the strict doctype help this? Here are some examples... Using the Transitional doctype, the following presentational ELEMENTS are allowed: - u - s and strike - center - font - basefont Using the strict doctype these are not allowed - they are invalid. Using the Transitional doctype, the following presentational ATTRIBUTES are allowed: - background and background-color attributes for body element. - align attribute on div, form, paragraph (p), and heading (h1...h6) elements - align, noshade, size, and width attributes on hr element - align, border, vspace, and hspace attributes on img and object elements - align attribute on legend and caption elements - align and background-color on table element - nowrap, bgcolor, width, height on td and th elements - bgcolor attribute on tr element - clear attribute on br element Using the strict doctype these are not allowed - they are invalid. With the transitional doctype inline elements and character strings are allowed in: - body - blockquote - form - noscript - Noframes Using the strict doctype these are not allowed. They are invalid. Why is it important to remove presentational elements and attributes from markup? Because presentational elements and attributes add weight to the page and make it harder for you to manage, change the presentation of the page at a later date. Thanks Russ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [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 dealing with someone that has no interest in standards, I wouldn't attempt to convince them that they are inherently good. From your description, they don't care and they're unlikely to start caring! :) If they're a bottom-line type, mention that you will be able to maintain the site more efficiently (ie. less cost). If they're an SEO type, mention that valid sites tend to index more consistently in search engines (validation doesn't guarantee high ranking, but it is still a major part of any serious, ethical SEO). Your question about strict vs. transitional also begs the questions how close to strict are they?. If they could almost validate as strict already, then cool - go for strict. If they are miles off because hundreds of users would need to be trained to produce strict, I'd live with transitional and work on a strategy that doesn't require training hundreds of users to be standardistas. cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
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: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
@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 guarantee high ranking, but it is still a major part of any serious, ethical SEO) Is that proven to be true? Genuinely curious. Cheers, Tim From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Buchanan Sent: Wednesday, 30 April 2008 9:06 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [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 dealing with someone that has no interest in standards, I wouldn't attempt to convince them that they are inherently good. From your description, they don't care and they're unlikely to start caring! :) If they're a bottom-line type, mention that you will be able to maintain the site more efficiently (ie. less cost). If they're an SEO type, mention that valid sites tend to index more consistently in search engines (validation doesn't guarantee high ranking, but it is still a major part of any serious, ethical SEO). Your question about strict vs. transitional also begs the questions how close to strict are they?. If they could almost validate as strict already, then cool - go for strict. If they are miles off because hundreds of users would need to be trained to produce strict, I'd live with transitional and work on a strategy that doesn't require training hundreds of users to be standardistas. cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
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 someone that has no interest in standards, I wouldn't attempt to convince them that they are inherently good. From your description, they don't care and they're unlikely to start caring! :) Another way to look at it, is they are more interested in the value of the standard in the particular situation. There are lots of business models, technical standards etc - however not every one of these is applicable to every situation. I also don't quite understand why compliance with the standard is not inherrent in how the page is coded. Are you suggesting it is more difficult, time consuming etc? If you are suggesting a retro fit - you would have to produce a more compelling argument. If they're a bottom-line type, mention that you will be able to maintain the site more efficiently (ie. less cost). If they're an SEO type, mention that valid sites tend to index more consistently in search engines (validation doesn't guarantee high ranking, but it is still a major part of any serious, ethical SEO). Another compelling argument would be interoperability - that visitors (potential clients/customers/business partners) would be able to read/use the website. Perhaps also future compatibility with tools. Maybe even demonstrate the shortcomings. Your question about strict vs. transitional also begs the questions how close to strict are they?. If they could almost validate as strict already, then cool - go for strict. If they are miles off because hundreds of users would need to be trained to produce strict, I'd live with transitional and work on a strategy that doesn't require training hundreds of users to be standardistas. snip Here is the HREOC SOCOG Website case: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/decisions/comdec/2000/DD000120.htm -- Marghanita da Cruz http://www.ramin.com.au Phone: (+61)0414 869202 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
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 W3C standards and Section 508...) One question that has been raised is if site X has pages that validate as transitional, why do you have to produce pages that validate as strict? 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? Good luck -- Philip http://NikitaTheSpider.com/ Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
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, LLC /Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design/ Phone: (609) 335-3076 Fax: (866) 301-8045 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nikita The Spider The Spider wrote: 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 W3C standards and Section 508...) One question that has been raised is if site X has pages that validate as transitional, why do you have to produce pages that validate as strict? 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? Good luck *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***begin:vcard fn:Joseph Taylor n:Taylor;Joseph org:Sites by Joe, LLC adr:;;408 Route 47 South;Cape May Court House;NJ;08210;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Designer / Developer tel;work:609-335-3076 tel;fax:866-301-8045 tel;cell:609-335-3076 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://sitesbyjoe.com version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
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 are sometimes a little intense) give you an explanation on what is wrong. These explanations are a good teaching aid! It is also important to understand that a strict and valid document is not the ultimate aim - it is just one aspect of best practice. For example, you can create a document that is valid but uses poor semantics or poor accessible markup. Ideally we should be aiming to create documents that: - Valid - Use Semantic markup - Use Accessible markup - Separate markup, presentation and behaviour Thanks Russ on 30/4/08 8:44 AM, Dory at wrote: 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 for those of us who still refer to a css handbook at times and have a sense of dread with a new IE browser release. There are times when getting a page to work on all browsers and validate can be daunting enough just in transitional... Is this really all the difference between the two doctypes? If I print this out and place it beside the CSS handbook could I possibly obtain Strict validation? Thank you for posting this, Dory *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
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, exactly, as old as their corresponding strict doctypes? :-) -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
@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 guarantee high ranking, but it is still a major part of any serious, ethical SEO) Is that proven to be true? Genuinely curious. Yes I believe the points are true - I wouldn't recommend lying as an advocacy tactic :) You are of course giving things the best spin to achieve your goal, everyone does that. But the spin should be presenting the truth in the best light and addresing benefits that your manager cares about. Talk bottom-line with bottom-line people; talk standards to standardistas. re: Cost efficiency it's about how well you can redesign your current site or build new pages. My experience is that standards make that process faster, which means less staff time, which means less cost. Of course if your developers aren't any faster working with a standards-based site, you might not be able to use that argument. But I'm yet to meet a standardista who wasn't able to do things more efficiently with a standards-based site compared with a non-standards site. For SEO, there are two things to remember at all times: 1) No one single thing is a magic bullet, but there are lots of parts of the puzzle. 2) Nobody except Google/Yahoo/etc's engineers are 100% sure what works. Many SEO consultants pretend they're privy to inside knowledge, but the ethical ones admit that everything is just informed guesses based on observations. So with that in mind, what I've said about SEO is as proven as you can actually get with SEO. I've had an SEO consultant say (direct quote) if everyone built their sites with web standards, we'd be out of a job. What they meant was, if everyone created *semantically correct* documents, with a good title and heading structure. You don't have to build with standards to rank well - the crappiest website in the world will rank highly if millions of people link to it. But, all else being equal, a standards-based, semantically-correct site will do a bit better than a site with no structure. More to the point, a correct heading structure allows you to define the content heirarchy and create a natural/organic keyword definition for your site. It gives you a lot of control, by virtue of really accurately defining what you're publishing. Nothing in the markup can guarantee high rank (not counting dirty tricks I guess). But you can be pretty sure of accurate keyword indexing, which is a big part of the SEO picture. cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
-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 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 between strict and transitional vs standards and quirks mode Strict and transitional are both correct doctypes. Quirks mode vs standards compliance mode is about whether a correct doctype is present or not. 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. -- Regards, Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
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 have an xml declaration above an xhtml 1.0 Strict / Transitional DTD for any regular document. A comment at the top is not practical though, since that'll disturb later IE/win versions too. Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
