Geoff Deering wrote:
There are a number of advantages to using HTML/XHTML Strict.
If you use transitional, that is exactly what you are doing, and you may
need to do it, strict may not work for your design because of current lack
of support and other things, but you are using a DTD that is transitional
between the aim of separating content and presentation, and mixing them
together.  It's basically a compromise.

I think what Andy meant (as I've got a feeling he's well in the know when it comes to css and separation of content and presentation) is what the advantages are if you can effectively write strict code while still declaring a transitional doctype. Yes, transitional doesn't make certain elements illegal, but that doesn't mean that developers can't do nicely separated content/HTML and presentation/CSS which happen to have a transitional doctype. There are *no* inherent benefits to tableless, css driven layouts in XHTML strict versus tableless, css driven HTML (strict or transitional) or even XHTML transitional. In particular, when served as text/html rather than application/xhtml+xml, and when not mixing in additional "X" technologies, for all intents and purposes XHTML is simply HTML with a slightly funkier syntax (self-closing elements for instance) which older browsers treat like broken HTML. There is no added benefit to the user. All the things you mention (switching stylesheets for different layouts, etc) can be done fine in transitional.

XHTML (and strict in particular) being more accessible than HTML (and particularly transitional) is a myth. Conscientious coders can use exactly the same approach (tableless etc) in both.

Sorry, ended up being a cyclic argument, but you see what I mean...and *that's* what Andy meant (if I may be so bold as to make an educated guess)

Patrick H. Lauke
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] |
The discussion list for

for some hints on posting to the list & getting help

Reply via email to