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
