Absolutely No Need For Document Type Definitions Anymore!

greeneagle · #1 (**permalink**) 01-23-2004, 11:15 AM

Most of the top Internet websites do not use Document Type Definitions (DTD) anymore. There is absolutely no DTD declaration in their code, yet there seems to be no problem accomplishing Site/Page Rankings (PR) of 8-10 (ref. examples below). Nor, does there seem to be any problem in browser viewing, or cross platform compatibility.

Our research shows that the Dell Corporation website was the only one out of several sites that had actually adhered correctly to W3 recommendations at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/sgml/dtd.html .

Has browser technology outdated the need for DTD declarations? Is it sloppy coding by all the top Site developers? Is it just a general disregard for W3 directive?

Whatever it is, IT SURE DOESN”T SEEM TO HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON PAGE RANKING!

Is there any need to declare Document Type Definitions anymore?

www.dell.com (PR8)
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">

www.business.com (PR8)
No Document Type Declaration

www.yahoo.com (PR9)
No Document Type Declaration

www.google.com (PR10)
No Document Type Declaration

www.ebay.com (PR8)
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">

www.microsoft.com (PR10)
No Document Type Declaration

www.amazon.com (PR0)
No Document Type Declaration

www.go.com (PR9) – (OOPS - How about this one?)

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">

www.cnn.com (PR9)
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">

www.doubleclick.com (PR8)
No Document Type Declaration

www.altavista.com (PR10)
No Document Type Declaration

www.mapquest.com (PR9)
No Document Type Declaration

www.w3.org (PR10)
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">
<head profile="http://www.w3.org/2000/08/w3c-synd/#">

matauri · #2 (**permalink**) 01-23-2004, 01:20 PM

Actually, I asked this question once before to someone, and their reply was "if you were any of these entitites, would you worry about doctype?". At the time I wondered the same thing. It seemed to be at the time that it was a question of 'whats in a name?'.

So I'm interested to hear the theories behind this one too.

Cindy

ranjan · #3 (**permalink**) 01-23-2004, 01:47 PM

If you know the browsers you design for, it really doesn't matter whether you use a doctype or not for HTML (I say HTML and not XHTML). I code as per standards and use doctypes then why do I make this statement? To understand this lets understand what a doctype does.

A dotype tells a browser that you want the browser to treat your document to a certain flavor of HTML (may be 3.2, may be 4.0, maybe 4.01)

If i do not specify the doctype the browser is free to use whatever flavor of HTML it feels like using.

The difference is very clear, on one hand I have control on how a browser should treat my documents and on the other I give up this control and depend on the browser.

So If I know what my browser is going to do with my code in absence of a doctype, I can skip the doctype and hence my statement.

However specifying the doctype gives me the following advantages

1. Most browsers follow the specs as per the doctype, so my coding is cross browser.
2. The addition of new browsers in the market place does not bother me, as long as they treat standard code as standard.

Obviosly this makes my life as a coder simpler. Rather than have to know each and every browser, I prefer to know the standards.

matauri · #4 (**permalink**) 01-23-2004, 02:05 PM

Ranjan, would this explain why a lot of WYSIWYG editors dont include it in their code?

Cindy

ranjan · #5 (**permalink**) 01-23-2004, 02:18 PM

The editor I have used for a long time is Dreamweaver since version 3. As technology evolved, Dreamweaver realised that doctypes were necessary and has added doctypes to its default documents (Dreamweaver MX 04 writes the full doctype)

I have opened frontpage before but have never been a user. Frontpage had a marketing strategy, which I believe was

1. Let users create websites easily
2. And if they do let them create website that work only in IE.

What they achieved with this was IE became a huge browser. Since sites were created in Frontpage, they worked only in IE.

This I guess prompted other WYSIWYG app developers to follow the footstep of the big one.

With FP 2003 the trend I guess begins to change. I hear the new version also writes the correct doctype

matauri · #6 (**permalink**) 01-23-2004, 02:33 PM

So in your opinion Ranjan, th reason the famous five dont use the doctype would be....

Quote:

Originally Posted by greeneagle

Is it sloppy coding by all the top Site developers? Is it just a general disregard for W3 directive?

?

Cindy

ranjan · #7 (**permalink**) 01-23-2004, 02:39 PM

My answer would be that

They are old sites. They have been here almost since the beginning of the internet age. No one cared about doctypes then. As they bagan to grow, so did their sites. Now they face the dilema, should we or should we not do it.

Not only is it a question of if they should do it, but also if they decide to do it, should they change all their archieve documents as well.

As far as microsoft goes, i believe that all their decisions are marketing oriented. I am sure they will not change to standards since they have dropped out of W3C

ranjan · #8 (**permalink**) 01-23-2004, 02:44 PM

I should also add that most of these big player also have old content management systems that cannot write compliant code. These content management systems are pretty costly, they have to reconsider the whole CMS if they decide to comply.

matauri · #9 (**permalink**) 01-23-2004, 02:49 PM

Good point Ranjan. The expense factor would have to come into it, espcially if they are not losing anything in the interim over it.

It doesnt set good precidence though does it?

Cindy

ranjan · #10 (**permalink**) 01-23-2004, 02:58 PM

You are beginning to see trends of change with huge sites like wired.com becoming standards compliant. Sooner or later most of the big ones will change.

I guess if the ecomomy picks up investments wil be made by others.

It should not be difficult for amazon atleast, after having invested so much in their web services (xml feeds). They just need to convert their xml into valid (x)html.

greeneagle · #11 (**permalink**) 01-23-2004, 02:59 PM

I just used top sites as an example of "Industry" leaders. This phenomenen pervades at every level with about the same percentages as the examples.

I even noticed my older Dreamweaver sites did not include, so I recently went back and changed them all!

Probably just a useless exercise, but it made me feel better.
Ken

greeneagle · #12 (**permalink**) 01-23-2004, 03:22 PM

I can concur with you both:

quote
Good point Ranjan. The expense factor would have to come into it, espcially if they are not losing anything in the interim over it.
________

But,
Does that mean that due to post 9-11 enconomies:
1) That W3 is out of step with reality because of timing?
2) Does it mean that the pocketbooks are going to lead any fiture transitions?
3) Most of all with the momentum not behind change --- Doesn't this mean that "Transitional" is going to be transitional for some time to come? Probably at least 5-10 more years!

Ken

carju1 · #13 (**permalink**) 01-23-2004, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greeneagle

Does that mean that due to post 9-11 enconomies:
1) That W3 is out of step with reality because of timing?
2) Does it mean that the pocketbooks are going to lead any fiture transitions?
3) Most of all with the momentum not behind change --- Doesn't this mean that "Transitional" is going to be transitional for some time to come? Probably at least 5-10 mor years!

1) W3 have been out of touch with reality since the internet came out of academia and became a public playground.
2) I can't see any major pc based inovations in the next few years other than a continued increase in WWW usage and as pocketbooks/mobiles will also increase so they could be change inovators
3) Transitional will hang around for at least 5-10 years or until such time as Microsoft say otherwise.

On DTD's I bet at least 80% of all sites either don't have them or have old out of date/wrong ones. Therefor by default if 80% of all sites ignor DTD it is a general disregard for W3 directive. In fact with 80% ignoring most W3 directives, W3 is a powerless body who's only real way to get directives into common use is if FP, MX and the other major WYSiWYG page creation tools include them atomatically. Because most web pages are created by these and most of the people creating them neither know nor care what W3 is.

Julian

disciple · #14 (**permalink**) 01-24-2004, 02:31 AM

Quote:

However specifying the doctype gives me the following advantages

1. Most browsers follow the specs as per the doctype, so my coding is cross browser.
2. The addition of new browsers in the market place does not bother me, as long as they treat standard code as standard.

Obviosly this makes my life as a coder simpler. Rather than have to know each and every browser, I prefer to know the standards.

I don't consider myself an expert by any means but I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.

I have been trying hard to create sites that are compliant with the standards. I have been pleased with the results in general as I view them across the major browsers. My sites are still very simple in comparison to what can be done using standard coding. I think some of the best examples available are found HERE. If this doesn't show that standards can only help and not hinder development then I don't know what would convince anyone.

mikmik · #15 (**permalink**) 01-24-2004, 03:16 AM

Cindy, in xhtml, you are using this "<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>" and this is an example of the use of a part of the 'Doctype Declaration' that causes IE6 to render documents in "quirks mode" and not "standards complient"
I see that Ranjan said it is important for xhtml though.
If you are looking for consistent crossbrowser appearance, I see discipli has achieved this admireably, and I just checked my site, it is almost the same (except for one link at bottom - IE boxmodel BS lol) in all including opera7.

But carjul, I have to ask you why you say that no one listens to or respects the W3C. I am reading everyday and on all kinds of sites, including Mozilla, about using and conforming to their standards. Am I wrong? Will we get to any sort of agreement by spreading this type of 'attitude' about W3C 'impotence' and lack of credibility?

I, for one, learn great deals of important information from them, and I think the "5 - 10 years" timeframe is irresponsible.I do not agree with this

Quote:

On DTD's I bet at least 80% of all sites either don't have them or have old out of date/wrong ones. Therefor by default if 80% of all sites ignor DTD it is a general disregard for W3 directive. In fact with 80% ignoring most W3 directives, W3 is a powerless body who's only real way to get directives into common use is if FP, MX and the other major WYSiWYG page creation tools include them atomatically. Because most web pages are created by these and most of the people creating them neither know nor care what W3 is.

However you know much more than me, and I am curious as to all this. I see the standards as being very important now, because Microsoft does not dominate XML like html attitude, and all that I keep seeing is IBM and Adobe , etc,( opencource community?)
using W3C standards in an effort to co-operate.
Again, I am naive in this area, and appreciate any advice and input.
Thanks julian and ranjan and everybody.

greeneagle · #16 (**permalink**) 01-24-2004, 03:40 AM

Laws of Physics apply universally ( and believe me that even includes social phenomenen! )(Where's minstrel when we really need him?-LOL):

A large ship in the high seas has a much larger turning radius than a motor boat putting along in a lake.

momentum-momentum-momentum

A long time coming in this economy - my friends!

I see; ABSOLUTELY NO RUSH !

Disclaimer! - My opinion only!

Ken

mikmik · #17 (**permalink**) 01-24-2004, 05:51 AM

No disrespect intended, everybody, but anybody who says that things are not in any hurry of changing - I really think you are nuts!
The pace of technolocal change is doubling every 18 to 24 months, and just because it takes 6 months for something to happen now, doesn't mean that this will be the case in another year!
I really have a big problem with people advising "don't worry about it, just stay the way you are"
in this day and age.
What happens when someone green decides to listen to you and you are wrong - they get caught with their pants down!
If they decide to embrace change, and stay up to speed with whatever is currently developing, the worst that can happen is that if it doesn't change, then they are no further behind.
Ken, I am surprised at you. You say that all of a sudden you are getting 1/3 of visits from handheld device browsers, and you don't think that is 'momentum'?
If my pages display nice on a 300px wide resolution, you don't think that they will go to my page instead of your 750px wide, and have to scroll endlessly side to side to see it?

I mean, give me a break, things are changing, faster and faster every day, and sticking your head in the sand does not change that, and I am really against giving wrong or dangerous advice to folks who rely on our judgement!

Quote:

Today’s HTML has advanced far beyond its first humble steps. But its virtues now shackle it; HTML can no longer move forward. So its makers have created a new language: XML.

From here : http://www.sitepoint.com/article/345/1

mikmik · #18 (**permalink**) 01-24-2004, 06:19 AM

Here you guys, decide if you want to learn and use DTD, so thatyou can understand schema after that.

Quote:

XML is a very handy format for storing and communicating your data between disparate systems in a platform-independent fashion. XML is more than just a format for computers -- a guiding principle in its creation was that it should be Human Readable and easy to create.

XML allows UNIX systems written in C to communicate with Web Services that, for example, run on the Microsoft .NET architecture and are written in ASP.NET. XML is however, only the meta-language that the systems understand -- and they both need to agree on the format that the XML data will be in. Typically, one of the partners in the process will offer a service to the other: one is in charge of the format of the data.

The definition serves two purposes: the first is to ensure that the data that makes it past the parsing stage is at least in the right structure. As such, it's a first level at which 'garbage' input can be rejected. Secondly, the definition documents the protocol in a standard, formal way, which makes it easier for developers to understand what's available.
DTD - The Document Type Definition

http://www.sitepoint.com/article/931

matauri · #19 (**permalink**) 01-24-2004, 09:05 AM

I dunno Mik... as much as I would like to say Julian is wrong, he's also very right.

W3C is largely ignored, and so is standardization. Also, because of the influx of 'wannabe' designers due to new technology and those WYSIWYG editors, whatever doctype these applications put there is what the 'designer' think should be there. Think about how many forums are around on web development, and all the newbie designers that frequent them....exactly how many actually read or contribute to topics such as this? Most I would venture wouldnt even know what we are talking about, just like I didnt until a few months ago. But I had the yearning to learn my craft, others only want to deliver a product. These are the ones that will hold back the tide.

So, even though Julians post doesnt sit with being the 'correct' message, it is however mainstream thought. So yes, even though the W3C say that transitional & even HTML will be gone within a couple of years....I honestly cant see it happening that soon.

Cindy

mikmik · #20 (**permalink**) 01-24-2004, 10:57 AM

Matauri wrote

Quote:

So, even though Julians post doesnt sit with being the 'correct' message, it is however mainstream thought. So yes, even though the W3C say that transitional & even HTML will be gone within a couple of years....I honestly cant see it happening that soon.

I didn't say it would be gone, I say that assuming that things aren't changing is bad advice, and the fact that us newbies are so interested in it, and that Microsoft itself,as well as all the players that I can see, are developing strongly in the direction of xml, I think that it is bad advice to ass