...

View Full Version : xhtml1-strict.dtd vs xhtml1-transitional.dtd



krycek
12-14-2002, 11:13 AM
OK just a quickie...

My site is valid XHTML and does everything (well almost everything) in CSS (which is also valid).

Is there any advantage in using a strict doctype as opposed to the standard transitional doctype? I changed it to strict just now, as it still displays exactly the same in both Mozilla and IE6.

Is there anything I should be aware of with using a strict doctype? And which is 'better' to use...

::] krycek [::

cg9com
12-15-2002, 05:21 AM
which is better?
i guess you couldnt really get an unbiased answer to that question.
my opinion is strict xhtml
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd

i havnt had any problems with it that i couldnt solve within an hour at the most.

brothercake
12-15-2002, 05:24 AM
A potential problem with strict xhtml is that IE6 renders it in quirks mode

jkd
12-15-2002, 05:38 AM
Originally posted by brothercake
A potential problem with strict xhtml is that IE6 renders it in quirks mode

It renders my XHTML 1.1 doctype in strict mode. It goes into quirks if it sees the <?xml?> processing instruction (which is utterly stupid of it).

krycek
12-15-2002, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by brothercake
A potential problem with strict xhtml is that IE6 renders it in quirks mode

I definitely agree with jkd on this one

::] krycek [::

brothercake
12-15-2002, 05:50 PM
Oh I see - so you're saying this with XHTML strict, the first thing on the page should be an <?xml tag, but if it is then IE6 goes into quirks mode?

krycek
12-15-2002, 06:00 PM
yes... sort of.

As far as I understand, the xml tag isn't even necessary. I am not sure why it should be there... my code is still valid XHTML without it, and IE mucks up with it. So, leave it out :)

::] krycek [::

brothercake
12-15-2002, 06:07 PM
XHTML is XML, so really it should start with an <?xml declaration, to be 100% valid. Not necessary in practise, but correct in theory.

There are big advantages though - in mozilla if you treat XHTML as XML - and configure your server to associate .xhtml with application/xml+xhtml you get a much better result - no pointless attempts to display erroneous coding - you get an XML parsing error if you make a mistake :)


But unfortunately ... IE doesn't understand this ... .xhtml as anything other than text/html makes it prompt for a download :(

jkd started a thread (http://www.codingforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10405) about this .... don't think a full solution was found for Apache, but a friend told me that IIS can use Response.Header to write browser-conditionalised mime types.

jkd
12-15-2002, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by brothercake
XHTML is XML, so really it should start with an <?xml declaration, to be 100% valid. Not necessary in practise, but correct in theory.

The <?xml?> processing instruction is actually optional. An XML viewer should be able to "guess" at the encoding by the first few characters and such.



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum