Hallo, could someone quickly explain why bother using XHTML Strict and css combined is NOT as good as using Transitional doc? Based on my tutorials saying that strict is not supported by a lot of browsers? So why use it in the first place?

I don't agree with that.

 

You should use a Strict doctype unless you find that you have validation errors or warnings because you have used deprecated (out of date) tags which only validate with Transitional doctypes.

Strict and HTML 5 are the most modern doctypes.

 

Transitional is for legacy code and has a far looser set of rules.

Ok thankyou, that clears it up. I am practising and what I have also done is to download a couple of reasonably simple web papges with their sourc codes. i am finding that a lot of these are using transitional with CSS, I thought that strict was the right one, but seeing all this through me a bit.

 

Oh and by the way SALISBURY. I just posted a search in Chat forum asking if there was anyone from Salisbury. Then I came here to check the messages and saw you. I will look you up.

 

thankyou both for the replies, am still looking for someone who is using Pagespinner, any chances with you guys?

 

Kind regards, Chris.

Strict is a little bit... elitist, on many occasions. I'm not entirely in agreement with what it enforces. For example, you cannot open a link using target="_blank" when using a strict doctype. I would never attempt to force a big site to use strict simply because it would literally be more hassle than it's worth. I would expect to see ANY site designed by a professional validate to transitional though (that is unless the client has got their grubby little hands all over it).

Strict all the way baby. _self _parent _blank etc were deprecated for good reason imo. i hate windows being opened on me. if it is a must for a site to do these things, you do javaScript for that to work around the validation quirks.

 

window.open it's actually less code than target="_blah" for every link. with js you can target all links you want like this in one go.

 

There are too many rules for transitional. It's just very sloppy imo, that's why wysiwyg software usually use it as their default doctype, to clean up the mess they output.

 

Not saying this of you at all.

Hi guys, I'm studying from a wide variety of sources; they include W3C and Lynda (recognised and certified by Adobe); also using my tools to analyse other peoples' websites. So far, I say so far I have only seen Transitional being used. BUT, The tutors say that HTML is sloppy, XHTML 1.0 is not, and that is what is being used. Also many web browsers have not geared up for HTML 5.0 and I believe it was abandoned in 2006 for this precise reason - browser companies were un-interested. Also as I understand things so far, although we don't have to go way back, backward compatibility is important to the millions who just want to view a site from their desktop. Strict has been NOT recommended by a few professionals, stay away from HTML 5.0 and keep, just for now to XHTML1.0 transitional (not even 1.1).

 

This is not my opinion, these things are just want I am learning and seem to have a broad range of professional agreement at this moment in Browser History.

 

Regards

 

Chris.

Hi guys, I'm studying from a wide variety of sources; they include W3C and Lynda (recognised and certified by Adobe); also using my tools to analyse other peoples' websites. So far, I say so far I have only seen Transitional being used. BUT, The tutors say that HTML is sloppy, XHTML 1.0 is not, and that is what is being used. Also many web browsers have not geared up for HTML 5.0 and I believe it was abandoned in 2006 for this precise reason - browser companies were un-interested. Also as I understand things so far, although we don't have to go way back, backward compatibility is important to the millions who just want to view a site from their desktop. Strict has been NOT recommended by a few professionals, stay away from HTML 5.0 and keep, just for now to XHTML1.0 transitional (not even 1.1).

 

This is not my opinion, these things are just want I am learning and seem to have a broad range of professional agreement at this moment in Browser History.

 

Regards

 

Chris.

 

Html Strict, and xhtml strict are fine. Most people use xhtml purely for the brownie points they get from the community, not so that they can use xml + html together (the intention for xhtml).

 

All modern browsers support html5, and their are tricks to get it to work in legacy browsers.

 

Google wave is html5 and css3, why would they use an 'abandoned' technology? xhtml2 was abandoned, instead it's now just a subset of html5 so has been dubbed xhtml5.

 

Anyway, always aim for strict, it's not too hard, but don't worry too much. The most important things are that the site works, it's accessible, functional etc.

 

It's the end result that really matters, not how you got their.

well I will certainly bare all this in mind. Once I am comfortable with everything and have at least my first website designed, I will investigate things further.

Also use XHTML because it doesn't allow to write slop most of the time and also the handiness of self closing elements.

 

<hr /> <link rel="stylesheet" /> etc etc

 

You don't see that in HTML. Elements closed with / in html are wrong wrong wrong.

 

Edit* another point, try bringing an RSS feed into HTML without validation. RSS == XML

Hi guys, I'm studying from a wide variety of sources; they include W3C and Lynda (recognised and certified by Adobe); also using my tools to analyse other peoples' websites. So far, I say so far I have only seen Transitional being used. BUT, The tutors say that HTML is sloppy, XHTML 1.0 is not, and that is what is being used. Also many web browsers have not geared up for HTML 5.0 and I believe it was abandoned in 2006 for this precise reason - browser companies were un-interested. Also as I understand things so far, although we don't have to go way back, backward compatibility is important to the millions who just want to view a site from their desktop. Strict has been NOT recommended by a few professionals, stay away from HTML 5.0 and keep, just for now to XHTML1.0 transitional (not even 1.1).

 

This is not my opinion, these things are just want I am learning and seem to have a broad range of professional agreement at this moment in Browser History.

 

Regards

 

Chris.

 

Chris,

 

Having taught at College I understand why instructors still teach transitional: they have approved, time-tested curricula for transitional web design practices. The time and money it takes to develop, refine, and implement a new curriculum is substantial and, so long as what is being taught is not (blatantly) wrong, it's a no-harm no-foul situation. However, once you have a firm footing in the basics start learning 'emerging' web standards: if you plan to pursue this as a career, don't stop at minimum knowledge.

 

And, though my pet peeve is tweaking for IE6, you are dead-right about backward compatibility. I work with several multi-national organisations that deploy IE6 on brand-new computers today so they can have a consistent install base. I wish that d*mn browser would DIE - just stop working one afternoon!

Chris,

 

Having taught at College I understand why instructors still teach transitional: they have approved, time-tested curricula for transitional web design practices. The time and money it takes to develop, refine, and implement a new curriculum is substantial and, so long as what is being taught is not (blatantly) wrong, it's a no-harm no-foul situation. However, once you have a firm footing in the basics start learning 'emerging' web standards: if you plan to pursue this as a career, don't stop at minimum knowledge.

 

And, though my pet peeve is tweaking for IE6, you are dead-right about backward compatibility. I work with several multi-national organisations that deploy IE6 on brand-new computers today so they can have a consistent install base. I wish that d*mn browser would DIE - just stop working one afternoon!

 

 

Hallo and thanks yes I intend that very thing. This has actually been said on Lynda that it is good to go forward and learn the new standards as they come out, but yep, do what is practical at this moment and common to all until things become a little more standardized and implemented by the browser designers.