Click here to get back home

HTML 4.01 strict / transitional vs. XHTML 1.0
 Home | NewsGroups | Search | About
Login Password
Register Now!
 comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html    Post an article   get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content
Subject Author Date
HTML 4.01 strict / transitional vs. XHTML 1.0 Niki Kovacs 09-18-2005
Get Chitika Premium
Posted by Niki Kovacs on September 18, 2005, 3:10 pm
Please log in for more thread options

Hi,

I'm actually discovering the wonderful world of w3c validation. Guess I'll
spend a few days learning the ins and outs of its, and then try to rewrite
my four PHP sites that are online.

Question: I wonder what doctype / standard to choose. Goal: sites must
display correctly on any browser. Yeah OK, I know this is my work to test
it everywhere (mind you, when I go online, more often than not I use Lynx
on my Linux Slackware box).

Everyone seems to have a good opinion of every standard. I don't want to
start a flame war here. Just choose one good language / standard... and
then stick to it.

Thanks for your advice,

Niki Kovacs
--
I'm not as think as you stoned I am.

Posted by David Dorward on September 18, 2005, 8:22 pm
Please log in for more thread options

Niki Kovacs wrote:

> Question: I wonder what doctype / standard to choose.

XHTML is loaded down with (mostly) subtle issues, but provides few benefits
to the vast majority. Stick with HTML. 4.01 is the latest and (really)
greatest but is also old enough to have a mature level of support among
user agents.

Transitional contains everything Strict does plus a pile of stuff that you
almost certainly shouldn't be using with with current levels of support for
CSS and JavaScript. The possible exception being the "start" attribute for
ordered lists.

So - HTML 4.01 Strict.

> Goal: sites must display correctly on any browser.

Loaded question. What is "correctly"?

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

Posted by Niki Kovacs on September 19, 2005, 3:18 am
Please log in for more thread options


David Dorward wrote:

> XHTML is loaded down with (mostly) subtle issues, but provides few
> benefits to the vast majority. Stick with HTML. 4.01 is the latest and
> (really) greatest but is also old enough to have a mature level of support
> among user agents.
>
> Transitional contains everything Strict does plus a pile of stuff that you
> almost certainly shouldn't be using with with current levels of support
> for CSS and JavaScript. The possible exception being the "start" attribute
> for ordered lists.
>
> So - HTML 4.01 Strict.

Thanks for the explanation!

Niki Kovacs
--
I'm not as think as you stoned I am.

Posted by Andy Dingley on September 18, 2005, 9:11 pm
Please log in for more thread options


wrote:

>Question: I wonder what doctype / standard to choose.

4.01 Strict because it minimises the IE variablility.


Similar ThreadsPosted
Validation: XHTML Transitional vs. HTLM 4.01 Strict July 23, 2004, 6:10 pm
Strict vs Transitional XHTML doctype and images January 30, 2007, 5:32 pm
Does IE have the same problems with XHTML 1.0 Transitional as it does with HTML Transitional? February 20, 2006, 9:39 am
Differences between HTML 4.01 Strict and HTML 4.01 Transitional? May 31, 2005, 7:13 pm
xhtml vs html 4 strict May 21, 2005, 5:23 pm
utf-8 and xhtml 1.0 strict October 28, 2004, 7:26 am
Strict XHTML and div question July 14, 2005, 7:07 pm
XHTML 1.0 Strict and the Apostrophe February 15, 2008, 11:12 am
What to use intead of taget_new in XHTML/Strict July 19, 2004, 7:41 am
image maps + xhtml strict October 23, 2004, 9:16 pm

Our other projects:

Art Dolls, Fairies and Mermaids - Sunnyfaces.net

Roy's Linux, Programming and Search Engines messages

1-Script XML SitemapXML Sitemap