SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

View Poll Results: What DTD do you use?

Voters
182. You may not vote on this poll
  • HTML (no DTD)

    6 3.30%
  • HTML 4.01 Strict

    38 20.88%
  • HTML 4.01 Transitional (this includes all subtypes)

    12 6.59%
  • XHTML 1.0 Strict

    80 43.96%
  • XHTML 1.0 Transitional

    46 25.27%
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 183
  1. #26
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,476
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Admo View Post
    What do you guys say about those that use templates such as those provided by Apple's iWeb software (http://www.apple.com/ilife/iweb/), or SimpleMachines (http://www.simplemachines.org/) and vBulletin (http://www.vbulletin.com/)? If you use them you never really have to worry about markup, right?

    What are pros and cons of using these, instead of actually doing all the markup yourself?

    Thanks,


    Adam
    The templates are fine as placeholders (as in "holding the fort") until you get your own skin/template/theme designed and written.

  2. #27
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,476
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AlienDev View Post
    Very nicely said Dan!
    Now that I think about it, that post may have been excessive.

  3. #28
    Back in Action Winged Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    outside my mind
    Posts
    900
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Schulz View Post
    It may be a waste of time to you, but not to anyone who takes their work seriously. Having valid code helps ensure that the sites will work and display properly regardless of what user agent your visitors are using; while it may not look 100% pixel perfect, it will render well enough for the visitor to use the site and do what s/he needs to do.
    Because I don't validate, I don't take my work seriously? What if I make my sites render in all browsers perfectly but not conform to standards? Is being standards compliant more important than making your site function correctly?


  4. #29
    SitePoint Addict Jack Matier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    292
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If I'm not using XHTML and just HTML I'm going to use HTML Strict, if I'm using XTML I'll be using XTML strict. It's that simple.

    I believe that the point is to use standards and not necessarily to try and push the web (2.0/3.0/50.0) on people. I mean, by following standards, websites are quite graceful on their own aren't they? So if someone still has Firefox -2.0.0.1 then they can still use and access the website no problems.

    Heck, as users go, they'll upgrade whenever they upgrade.

    I just want to see browsers use standards and interpret code in the same ways, that's it. No more, no less. No "this browser supports X amount of more code" crap.

    Good day.

  5. #30
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,875
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    The difference between HTML and XHTML (strict of course) from a coding point of view is very minor. The standards are intended to tell the web browsers what they should allow and make up just a part of the standards that someone creating a web page should follow. All those closing tags which are mandatory in XHTML and optional in HTML are mandatory in any well written web page regardless of which doctype is used.

    Where following the standards will make a difference to the person writing it is when it comes time to make changes to the page at a later date. By following decent standards the amount of time that will be required to make changes to the page later will be greatly reduced.

    The other place where it will make a difference is that pages written now to follow the standards should still display correctly in version 15 browsers that don't understand any of the deprecated messy ways that were used to create pages in the stone age.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  6. #31
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,328
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil_Friel View Post
    Yes, I believe strongly in web standards. Look at the alternatives - either a Microsoft-dominated web, or complete chaos, all sorts of proprietary lock-in crap, and everybody doing their own thing.<snip>
    Awesome post, Phil! I once read that a professional is a person who exerts some control over his profession. For example, even though medicine has been effectively privatized, doctors still have a voice through various organizations (the American Medical Institute, etc.) and journals. Teachers have utterly lost control of their profession.

    Web designers are blessed with a freedom few other people could imagine. Yet many of them chain themselves to Microsoft! If we are to be true professionals, then YES we need standards, and we need to support those standards, and we need to shoot down "proprietary" standards.

    As for the tired old bleat, "You can't change the status quo," I say you certainly can't if you don't even try. Internet Explorer is going down!

  7. #32
    Brevity is greatly overrated brandaggio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,424
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here is what I see as the white elephant in the room...

    Only those that can't make these very high quality pages (totally well formed) would argue against it. Don't expect to be there if you are just starting out and using an IDE.

    Some of us can pretty easily code pages that validate (both markup and presentation). Further, we can actually make the code work in any browsers we want and have it look near pixel perfect.

    It takes years to become a front end developer of this caliber - years - seriously.

    So what I am trying to say is that the value really is there and it isn't that hard. Your pages are/will/would be ultra light and SEO friendly as a result of being well formed and maintenance (if done by a trained hand) is also far easier.

    Tag soup is harder for me (and many others) to maintain than code that validates - it's that simple. You need Dreamweaver or FP to manage all those old table sites, but you don't for a well built, modern one - that is what is so liberating once you see the light.

    There are few if any advantages to having malformed code and there are many upsides to having truly sparkling, compliant code.

    I do want to say though you are still making web pages if you don't or can't get the code to look and do exactly what you want. Just like there is store brand ice cream and Haagen Dazs - and both are still ice cream, but they are also very different things that require different levels of attention to detail and quality of ingredients to produce.

    For the record, I started with FrontPage (eww ) and leaned on it for a bit (recalculate hyperlinks bailed me out an awful lot in beginning ) - I gave it up for good quite a few years ago and never looked back. I too have been frustrated by trying to get my pages right and felt I needed the assistance of an IDE...but I swear there is a light at the end of the tunnel - web standards and quality hand coding offer it and M$' proprietary code and IDE's do not.

    Finally, if IE was not so different (whatever you believe the reason for it may be) it would be that much easier to kick out valid, hackless pages that look great across the board. Then we could all sweat other details and having valid code would be a far less polarizing issue as it would hardly come up - it would be that much easier to achieve.

    HTML 4.01 Strict for me these days unless required otherwise.
    Last edited by brandaggio; Apr 1, 2007 at 23:39. Reason: Fixed some spelling and grammatical errors

  8. #33
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The way I look at it is, if you're serving your documents with a XHTML 1.0 Strict DTD as text/html, what value do you really gain over HTML 4.01 Strict? Very little value, if any, as far as I'm concerned.
    Yes, you could argue that you help to enforce standards by closing all your tags, using lowercase and quoting all attributes, etc but if that is all you are doing, you can format your HTML just as you would with HTML 4.01.
    Don't forget, HTML 4.01 is a standard too.

    Personally, I serve my documents as HTML 4.01 Strict unless I am using application/xhtml+xml.

  9. #34
    SitePoint Evangelist AlienDev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    591
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by NickPresta View Post
    The way I look at it is, if you're serving your documents with a XHTML 1.0 Strict DTD as text/html, what value do you really gain over HTML 4.01 Strict?
    Did you even read any of the posts in this topic?

  10. #35
    Brevity is greatly overrated brandaggio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,424
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Winged Spider View Post
    Because I don't validate, I don't take my work seriously? What if I make my sites render in all browsers perfectly but not conform to standards? Is being standards compliant more important than making your site function correctly?
    Specifically, when you do validate you help ensure proper display across all browsers. Not validating (and/or having malformed code) would decrease the likelihood of proper rendering.

    So if you validate you perhaps are a bit more serious about it, but it really it just a tool of the trade on your way to making proper pages and nothing more. I used to think it was kind of anal to do but now it is just a part of the routine and it helps me troubleshoot quite a bit.

  11. #36
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AlienDev View Post
    Did you even read any of the posts in this topic?
    I read the majority of posts in this topic. I fail to see how my post does not apply to people who serve XHTML as text/html.
    There are ~35 posts in this topic and 47 voters. Clearly not everyone who serves their documents as XHTML has posted.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Wozniak View Post
    Specifically, when you do validate you help ensure proper display across all browsers. Not validating (and/or having malformed code) would decrease the likelihood of proper rendering.

    So if you validate you perhaps are a bit more serious about it, but it really it just a tool of the trade on your way to making proper pages and nothing more. I used to think it was kind of anal to do but now it is just a part of the routine and it helps me troubleshoot quite a bit.
    I agree. Not only does having a valid document help ensure correct rendering, it ensures correct rendering in the future for browsers that will follow the standard. For example, using invalid code that works in an out-of-date browser will turn ugly when the browser updates and your code is rendered as is.

    On a semi-related matter, I often hear of people saying that it is more important to have a functional site than a valid one. Why does validity and functionality have to be an "or" thing? Being valid and functional should both be goals and should both be practiced.

  12. #37
    Brevity is greatly overrated brandaggio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,424
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I just saw this and it was so funny and apropos I had to share it .

  13. #38
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    The difference between HTML and XHTML (strict of course) from a coding point of view is very minor.
    From a markup perspective, yes. But there are differences concerning CSS and JavaScript that will bite your bottom if you don't know what you're doing.
    (Of course, most people who don't know what they're doing are serving their 'XHTML' as text/html anyway.)
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  14. #39
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy Tyssen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Brisbane, QLD
    Posts
    4,067
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AlienDev View Post
    Did you even read any of the posts in this topic?
    What does it matter if he's read anyone else's comments? That's his opinion and he's entitled to it. While most of the people who have commented have said they prefer XHTML, Nick's certainly not alone in thinking that there's little real world benefit to serving XHTML pages as text/html.

  15. #40
    Posts rarely lloydi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Swindon UK
    Posts
    620
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Seeing as this discussion started with a mention of my book, I thought I should have my say ...

    As far as advocating XHTML strict, it was more for the purposes of advocating good coding practice than it was to achieve the 'real' benefits that
    XHTML offers, that being HTML that could be parsed and treated like a web app; also, it was what SitePoint tended to want (I can remember that in Stuart Langridge's Unobtrusive JavaScript on SitePoint, he opted for HTML 4.01 and felt quite strongly that this was the right way to go, but as I understand it he had to fight his cause).

    As for not explaining why XHTML Strict and not sone other flavour, you really just have to take in to consideration the intended audience for this - the *complete* beginner. Discussing the fine points and trying to explain the differences/benefits of each would be lost on the audience.

    Personally, I would have been happy to use HTML 4.01, mention XHTML in passing and ensure that I didn't use any HTML 4.01 markup that is deprecated.
    Build Your Own Web Site the Right Way!
    A beginners' HTML/CSS book with web standards at its heart
    The Ultimate HTML Reference
    A complete reference, in glorious hardback

  16. #41
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,476
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Off Topic:

    I think you need to post more.

  17. #42
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy Tailslide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Bedford, UK
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Winged Spider View Post
    Because I don't validate, I don't take my work seriously? What if I make my sites render in all browsers perfectly but not conform to standards? Is being standards compliant more important than making your site function correctly?
    Validation is a means to an end - not an end in itself. It's meant to help us make our sites work cross-browser, cross-platform, cross-whatever.

    Using valid code is a starting point to building sites (along with semantic markup blah blah blah). As Tommy has said before - validation is like spell-checking a document. Just because it's spelt correctly doesn't mean that it makes any sense.

    If you're able to build sites that are accessible and work cross-browser and on text readers etc etc without using valid markup and validation then more power to you! That's what we're working towards. However it can be difficult to really know the code well enough to ensure that result without validation.

    Once you really know the code back to front then you are able to make judgements about what you use and whether an error is something that might cause issues for the user or whether it's likely to be just fine. Personally I'm running round enough not to want to have to think about yet another thing - so it's easier for me to just stick to valid markup. One less worry!

    The only other thing I'd say is that validation also helps to ensure longevity of a site - who's to say that errors that don't make a difference today won't break the site a year or so down the line?
    Little Blue Plane Web Design
    Blood, Sweat & Rust - A Land Rover restoration project

  18. #43
    CSS & JS/DOM Adept bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,482
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailslide
    If you're able to build sites that are accessible and work cross-browser and on text readers etc etc without using valid markup and validation then more power to you! That's what we're working towards.
    We're working towards cross-browser compatibility with invalid code?! Do you really mean that?

    (along with semantic markup blah blah blah).
    Blah blah blah? Do you really mean to downplay semantic markup or is it just me?
    We miss you, Dan Schulz.
    Learn CSS. | X/HTML Validator | CSS validator
    Dynamic Site Solutions
    Code for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, & Opera, then add fixes for IE, not vice versa.

  19. #44
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy Tyssen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Brisbane, QLD
    Posts
    4,067
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Kravvitz View Post
    Do you really mean to downplay semantic markup or is it just me?
    I doubt she's trying to downplay it. Probably more about getting tired having to go over the same ground over and over again and trying to avoid the inevitable arguments that usually ensue in these types of threads.

  20. #45
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy Tailslide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Bedford, UK
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyssen View Post
    I doubt she's trying to downplay it. Probably more about getting tired having to go over the same ground over and over again and trying to avoid the inevitable arguments that usually ensue in these types of threads.
    Yep - you got it.

    Bad phrasing on my part on that other bit - we're working towards ensuring all sites that are accessible and work cross-browser and on text readers etc etc.

    I'm just not smart enough to be able to try to do that without using valid code - but perhaps it's possible for others that know more than me to achieve it.
    Little Blue Plane Web Design
    Blood, Sweat & Rust - A Land Rover restoration project

  21. #46
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Kolkata, India
    Posts
    149
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My vote goes for XHTML.

  22. #47
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    292
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I voted XHTML Strict

    When creating/building anything you need to work to and asses your work against standards. Its these standards that ensure your work should reach a basic level quality.

    Si

  23. #48
    SitePoint Enthusiast bochgoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    80
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Been around the houses on this one, but I'm trying to stick with XHTML Strict on new sites.

  24. #49
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    49
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So long as the doc type declaration is appropriate and the code validates correctly against the choses schema, I don't really think it matters too much. Web browsers will probably support HTML 3.2 onwards for as long as the concept of a 'web browser' exists.

    Primitive HTML standards can still meet minimum legal accessibility requirements if used correctly, although I beleive that there are a number of real benefits for using XHTML standards... such as fewer bytes of code, forward compatibility, greater layout and desisn precision, site consistency and faster development timescales. For any new projects, it is hard to see why anyone would choose anything other than XHMTL Strict & CSS.

  25. #50
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    1,921
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by emkay View Post

    The main other reason people complain about validation is that it slows down the load time of the website? WTH - 56K Dial Up ended 5 years ago! The amount of people still using slow internet today is rapidly decreasing, so we do not need to worry about an extra few milliseconds of page load time. Although a validated website is considered a well thought out and healthy website, an invalid one just has the same potential as any other validated website. Look at BBC for instance.


    My 2 cents.
    So the 20&#37; of american users and 25% of Uk users on dial-up are not worth worrying about? The percentage in Australia and Ireland is reportedly higher (can't remember how much higher though). But hey, you know your business, and your clients must be doing well to risk antagonising that number of users.

    Wish I had the references to the reports where these figures were presented (government stats for planning ahead).

    Edit:
    http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0703/ - US (things have improved just recently)
    http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0611/ - europe and G7 countries
    http://ec.europa.eu/information_soci...lay&doc_id=233
    reports 26% of the households with interenet access have broadband in Ireland


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •