This is an interesting proposition. Always thought using Transitional would ease any pain. Obviously, now that I've personally developed strength in CSS/XHTML makes sense not to hang on to Transitional.
I'm gonna test this out for next few weeks, thanks! (ooh, except on this one job that's coming in next... ;o) )
On 6 Feb 2004, at 15:57, LC 55 wrote:
Have to admit, it is only XHTML Strict I ever use and, from a personal perspective i wouldn't waste my time on Transitional doctypes.
I am also a one man designer, so I can understand the amount of head scratching going on among us all at times, but as David McD stated: "Things come together with a lot more consistency".
And they will.
BFN, JG
--- "David McDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Peter,
What I have found, is that by using an XHTML Strict doctype rather than a
XHTMLTransitional doctype, things seem to come together with a lot more
consistency across the different browsers.
Hope this helps...
Regards,
David McDonald Web Designer
http://www.davidmcdonald.org <http://www.davidmcdonald.org/>
Southbank, Melbourne Australia
Mobile: 0403 332 140 ICQ: 11814164
_____________________________________________________________
Why Pay $35 for a .COM, .NET or .ORG Web Address? iDotz.Net offers Cool Domains @ Great Prices! Starting @ $8.75 Go: http://www.idotz.net
*****************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*****************************************************
Kind regards Martin Chapman
--
Web development, identity and design.
co-ord.com Limited 9 Tynwald Road West Kirby Merseyside CH48 4DA
Tel: +44 (0)151 625 1443 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.co-ord.com
--
*****************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*****************************************************
