Strict or Transitional?

**carbonize** · 09-26-2003, 03:05 PM

This one is mainly for all you hand coders out there. When making your sites do you make your HTML/XHTML strict or do you go for transitional? I was also going to take it further and give the option of saying if you use the URI doctype or prefer to have the browsers render your work in quirks mode but not everyone is familiar with the difference between strict rendering and quirks mode.

Personally I use HTML 4.01 transitional. I prefer to use the URI to make the browsers use strict rendering but as my site contains an example of IE filters I had to make it render in quirks mode.

**paulhiles** · 09-26-2003, 03:58 PM

Hi carbonize

One hand coder raising his hand timidly! :) For HTML sites, I generally go for the 4.01 Transitional doctype. As far as XHTML goes... I'm a bit of a newbie, and struggling to grasp all the nuances between one form and another! It certainly encourages a greater level of care from the coding perspective!
One site I've been asked to modify uses the following doctype:

Code:

<!DOCTYPE html
     PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
     "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">

Seems as though the designers wanted to keep their options open.. but at the moment the site doesn't validate as either Strict or Transitional. Think I could have my work cut out here!! :c)

Paul

**ranjan** · 09-26-2003, 04:27 PM

I voted for strict.

If I am designing a new website, I use the strict DTD. By validating against strict DTD, I eliminate the use of any deprecated tags / attributes. This helps keep my code clean and easily maintainable.

If I am re designing a website that already is built in prior versions of HTML with or without DTDs, I use Transitional DTD because it reduces my work load of getting rid of deprectaed tags / attributes.

It would be a silly to use a transitional dtd in new websites to accomadate elemant that were deprecated in HTML 4.0 which was released in July 1997. You are outdating yourself by almost 6 Years !!

**OSFan** · 09-26-2003, 05:17 PM

I always use HTML 4.1 Transitional. Firstly, it's much easier to code for, err, stating the obvious, less strict.

As for XHTML, I wonder how many browsers fully support it yet. Using transitional makes it more similar to HTML4.1 than using strict XHTML. The idea of XHTML is promote a much better document structure, and take the information on how things actually appear out of the tags, and into style sheets instead. Also, tables are supposed to be replaced for layout with pure CSS layout, a very very complicated process, not because it's difficult to code CSS, but because of browser rendering being different. I've only ever done one page in XHTML1.

**carju1** · 09-26-2003, 05:40 PM

Carbonize I need another button adding...

Button 3 = I Don't understand the question

and maybe even a button 4 = I sort of understand the question & I use whatever tag my tired old brain remembers.

Julian :)

**Narasinha** · 09-27-2003, 01:19 AM

It's been a while since I did a commercial site (but if you need some skilled HTML work done... let me know!), so I can only comment about the work I'm putting into my personal site. It's beginning its third incarnation, and this time I'm making sure it validates as HTML 4.01 strict.

Why go to the trouble of doing that? Well, for one, I like the idea of having the style and content separate. If I want to change a color, I can take care of it site-wide in just one CSS file. Yes, this is possible with transitional, but strict makes it more complete.

Another point is accessibility. I'm not required by law (as US Government sites are) to meet Section 508 accessibility standards for handicapped individuals, but I like the idea that I'm not shutting anyone out. Primarily my personal site contains a lot of genealogical information. I've been contacted by many distant cousins who found their way to my site via Google or some other type of search. Several of these people are in their 70s, and I'm sure their eyesight isn't what it used to be. (I'm just 38 and I know mine isn't!) I fiind it easier to meet accessibility guidelines with strict HTML.

Currently, most of the browsers are very forgiving when it comes to HTML tags. If there's an improperly nested tag or two, they still render the text at least readable. What happens when (or if) the latest browsers don't like the non-standard code? Is that the time to learn to code HTML strict? I'd prefer to have my site up to specs before that happens.

**carbonize** · 09-27-2003, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by narasinha

It's been a while since I did a commercial site (but if you need some skilled HTML work done... let me know!)

I assume that was meant as a sarcastic joke rather than a serious offer.

**Narasinha** · 09-27-2003, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by carbonize

Originally Posted by narasinha

It's been a while since I did a commercial site (but if you need some skilled HTML work done... let me know!)

I assume that was meant as a sarcastic joke rather than a serious offer.

Actually, I'm rather serious. I've been out of "the business" for quite some time. I truly enjoy handcrafting HTML (thus the effort I put into my personal site), and would love to do some work that would have a wider audience. Getting an existing site up to 4.01 strict specs would actually be fun. (I can't believe I really said that, but it's true! Must be the masochist in me.)

**USALUG** · 09-27-2003, 11:02 PM

Another vote for HTML 4.01 transitional.

I believe it allows for some extra tag options that strict does not. Specifically in the table/td tagsets.

Code:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

**carbonize** · 09-28-2003, 12:10 AM

USALUG so you like 4.01 transitional but you prefer the browsers to render the page strictly according to the 4.01 transitional specifications and not in quirks mode as you have the URI in your doctype.

Poll: Do you use HTML/XHTML strict or transitional?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Thread: Strict or Transitional?

Thread Tools

Display

Hybrid View

Strict or Transitional?

Strict or Transitional?

Re: Strict or Transitional?

Re: Strict or Transitional?

Similar Threads

Strict Filtering Problem

This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional!

iFrames and XHTML 1.1 Strict

Transitional versus Strict

HTML 4.01 Strict

Posting Permissions