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 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 183
  1. #51
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    79
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by emkay View Post
    Worrying too much about doctypes and valid code is a damn waste of time, and it's way too overrated in web design standards. It's like the new global warming and food diet commotion that has been going on in the last few years, way too mediated and overrated and I am seriously getting tired of it.
    Tell that to your children who will most possibly die from breathing poisoned air. Global warming is no fiction and people like you kill the earth. Start taking your own responsibility in real life and as a webdesigner.

    As a scientist I have seen the numbers and believe me: "Our planet is dying!" Don 't trust science to fix it when it's too late. "Use your bike" is probably the best advice to give to any individual. We can make a difference by just walking or using a bike...

  2. #52
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Nadia P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    NSW Australia
    Posts
    3,564
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This thread has taken a definite turn in direction :-)


    Nadia

  3. #53
    SitePoint Member intothemiddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Staffordshire, UK
    Posts
    11
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Cool Drad-nats

    I've had an ever increasing interest in web standards for a few years now, and so moved to XHTML strict in terms to make this more straight forward.
    As others have mentioned before having some framework to work with helps you reach your end target.

    The post that mentioned anyone using a text browser they didn't care how they saw their site - you're missing a major factor.

    The 161 Million potential users you're missing out on who are visually impaired in some respects, plus the amount of users who use handheld devices, or perhaps are in lower income family who can't afford to upgrade their PC from 1996 to be able to run modern browsers, or even those who haven't a clue what browser version they're using.

    Now imagine a shop where the sign says "no blind people, no working class, no old people" in the window.. why would you not want to make your shop available (even if it WAS just for others to view your content - who knows where visitors turn to customers).

    On top of this, government bodies around the World are now starting to enforce disabled web access - in time this will become enforced. What do you tell your clients when they spent 4k on a website a year ago and now have to come to you again to build another version because you were too ignorant before hand.

    I have to work on a large business2business website that was already built before I even started, I've spent a month or so converting that from a malformed HTML version to a 95% valid XHTML site (the .net code generated is ugly beyond belief.. MS again).

    This has achieved at least 2 things, more access (thus increased customer/viewings), along with smaller end files being fed. Now this may only be a few seconds per user per page, but the site has 100,000 visitors a week - the savings on bandwidth and user experience browsing has helped the ever slowing server speed.

    Sure, not following standards at all may work in the browsers you're able to view it in - but it's small minded to think these are the only ones that exist or that in a few years time the work and effort you've put in to creating these sites will all have been futile.

    There are cases where it isn't possible to make a 100% valid document (our sites a good example as it uses XML feeds that pull HTML generated content in so you get a collection of <br>'s etc). But you shouldn't disregard it because it scared you or you couldn't understand it.

  4. #54
    SitePoint Zealot jonboi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Preston suburbs, Lancs, UK
    Posts
    115
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would say complying to html 4.0 strict DTD is a bit silly seeing as XHTML has been around for so long now.
    web developers are a strange lot, and im not one of them im a computing academic (cough ... student).

    There are 3 type of web developer

    1. The old fashioned tables, frames, lot ... who need to be shot
    2. The "just make a page in flash and embed it" type .... again
    3. and the PROPER ones, who use CSS, XHTML, and flash where appropriate.


    since you ask, XHTML transitional is probably ok to strive for!,

    What i want to know is how the heck do we get around the fact that ASP.Net web servers generate stuff beyond the developers control, thus invalidating the page? :S
    Shine on you crazy diamond.
    Jon's boring blog about nothing.

  5. #55
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    1,921
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by intothemiddle View Post
    ...
    On top of this, government bodies around the World are now starting to enforce disabled web access - in time this will become enforced. What do you tell your clients when they spent &#163;4k on a website a year ago and now have to come to you again to build another version because you were too ignorant before hand...
    .
    Or arrogant perhaps?

  6. #56
    SitePoint Zealot jonboi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Preston suburbs, Lancs, UK
    Posts
    115
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    On top of this, government bodies around the World are now starting to enforce disabled web access - in time this will become enforced
    Im fairly sure the law requires developers to make 'reasonable adjustment' towards accessibility (which is pretty inspecific), short of enforced disabled web access.
    But here is a thought ..... Accessibility is for everyone, you and me included, and im not disabled.
    Shine on you crazy diamond.
    Jon's boring blog about nothing.

  7. #57
    SitePoint Evangelist AlienDev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    591
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    About the laws on web accesability:

    How exactly are the governments supposed to do that? They dont have a clue about websites and web developement and coding, so how can they make rules on what people can and cant do?

    Also it is IMPOSSIBLE (dont even try arguing!) to scan every single page of HTML on every single server in every single country (on every single planet?) for an <input> tag without a <label> tag before it!

    Its just crazy and impossible!

  8. #58
    SitePoint Member intothemiddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Staffordshire, UK
    Posts
    11
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Validation is about creating something for everyone (or to as near as ..).

    Arrogant also works, though as a first post I didn't want to hurt anyones feelings too much.

    I'd say there are 4 types from your 3 jonboi is the group who use a mixture of everything.

    In regards to .NET the new version will output valid XHTML markup (I believe you have the choice which to use).

    This topic like any other will cause arguments as there are always those who want to be different or just go against the grain to feel rebellious or just because they're arrogant/foolish/etc.

    I always feel I have new things to learn, the web takes this feeling a multiplies it.

  9. #59
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    26
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I guess I don't understand just one thing. If XHTML is the successor of HTML why would I find it desirable or indeed necessary to stay with HTML 4? Aren't the methods and practice behind XHTML more modern and up to date? I personally always code for XHTML but was suprised to read people religiously stick to HTML 4 still on here.

    Is there a technical reason for that? It seems to be like how people stick with C when C++ is out which improves and expands the former standard and such things like that but maybe I'm missing something. I would love to enlightened on the issue =)

  10. #60
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    26
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Failing to make websites accessible in the UK can land you in legal hot water if someone decides they've had enough of your site and tests the water in court: http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups...legalcase.hcsp

    I personally think this is a good thing as it doesn't really take much more additional work to make a website accessible and sensible for all of the web's users to use. People often dream up images in their head that an accessible site is a times new roman 1980s style website with no graphics. That is a huge fallacy and doesn't need to be like that at all.

  11. #61
    I am obstructing justice. bronze trophy fatnewt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    1,766
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I use XHTML, because I prefer the closing syntax. I use it in such a way, though, that it's basically HTML 4 Strict. The actual doctype is somewhat irrelevant. What's important is that the code is clean, valid and up-to-date.

    Following standards is in no way a waste of time, nor does it actually take any more time. If you know what you're doing, it takes less time - both now, and down the road when you're editing your markup. That's good sense for any business, or anyone just looking to make some pages.

    If standards-compliant code is taking you more time to write, then you're either new to this and could stand to learn some things, or you're just doing it wrong.
    Colin Temple [twitter: @cailean]
    Web Analyst at Napkyn


  12. #62
    I meant that to happen silver trophybronze trophy Raffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Tanzania
    Posts
    4,662
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AlienDev
    How exactly are the governments supposed to do that? They dont have a clue about websites and web developement and coding, so how can they make rules on what people can and cant do?
    That's why they employ people like AutisticCuckoo to make their websites. I suppose eventually governments who are serious about accessibility (like in most western European countries) will have whole teams of accessibility gurus enforcing the accessibility laws, investigating inaccessible websites and issuing fines if they don't conform to the laws.

    Regarding dial-up, FWIW when I go home to Peru I use it and I'd guess between a third and half the internet population there are on it too. It's probably more or less the same throughout South America. Certainly not a group worth ignoring for people who are interested in South American users.

  13. #63
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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?
    You probably mean make your site valid. If you write HTML then you are following the standard and attempting, at least, to be standards compliant. The fact that you make an error in your code but you don't fix because it works means something about you and your abilities in many, but not all, cases.

  14. #64
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    In most areas of computer scripting and programming, "valid code" is the only way. There is no forgiveness for errors.
    XHTML transitional is probably ok to strive for!
    Not at all. It's for transitioning from old code. All new pages should only use strict.

  15. #65
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Validation is about creating something for everyone
    It is not. Validation is error checking.
    If XHTML is the successor of HTML why would I find it desirable or indeed necessary to stay with HTML 4?
    Because most servers do not serve xhtml. Also, IE does not support xhtml served as xhtml.

  16. #66
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    1,921
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AlienDev View Post
    About the laws on web accesability:

    How exactly are the governments supposed to do that? They dont have a clue about websites and web developement and coding, so how can they make rules on what people can and cant do?

    Also it is IMPOSSIBLE (dont even try arguing!) to scan every single page of HTML on every single server in every single country (on every single planet?) for an <input> tag without a <label> tag before it!

    Its just crazy and impossible!
    You really have no idea, do you?
    When a USER complains, the law swings into action.
    The same way if you discriminate against someone on colour, class, religion or whatever else, or because they are disabled in some way and they complain.
    The same way if you own a shop and throw out or bar people on one of these grounds, and they complain.

    Jeez!

    PS RE scanning every web page in a country - every heard of google?

  17. #67
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm not really happy with some of the changes the W3C is making (ie: deprecating target, and deprecating elements like U, which dictates aestetics), but still I find myself using Strict standards. Actually, I tend to use the 1.1 DTD in most of my documents.

  18. #68
    SMF Compliance Manager Oldiesmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I generally use XHTML 1.0 transitional, although I guess that's mainly because it's what SMF uses.

    I also haven't figured out why the target attribute is being deprecated - it leaves us with no way to open links in new windows if the user has JavaScript disabled (a rare occurrence, but you never know).
    The Oldiesmann
    Compliance Manager, SMF
    SMF+Gallery2 - RC1 now available!

  19. #69
    Object Not Found junjun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    northern MI
    Posts
    1,392
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Maybe I missed something lately, but is there any practical advantage serving pages as XHTML yet?

    I've coded HTML4.01 strict now for a while. It makes it easy to work with CSS imho.

  20. #70
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    1,924
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A lot of the "features" that people tout about XHTML are really bogus. For example, that HTML creates bad markup and such. HTML currently is just as good as XHTML, if not better. The issue with XHTML is that its true advantage is only when it is served as application/xhtml+xml. However, most people (SitePoint for example) still serve their XHTML as text/html.

    HTML Strict is just as strict as XHTML Strict. The differences are so minor, I see no advantage to using either.

    HTML5 has a more promising future as it maintains backwards compatibility. XHTML2 is something completley different, although I think it is a huge step in a better direction, just too fast.

    I use XHTML Strict, but that's mainly because I am just use to it. I used to serve my website as the proper MIME (if the browser supported it), but it does not right now. Gotta fix that soon.

  21. #71
    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 jonboi View Post
    There are 3 type of web developer

    1. The old fashioned tables, frames, lot ... who need to be shot
    2. The "just make a page in flash and embed it" type .... again
    3. and the PROPER ones, who use CSS, XHTML, and flash where appropriate.
    There's at least one other type. The type who still only uses CSS for layout, knows all about accessibility issues but also knows very well the differences between HTML and XHTML and chooses (sometimes on a per project basis) to use strict HTML over strict XHTML for the reasons already outlined in this thread by Tommy (and in much more detail in this one) and Charmedlover and others and not just because they think that only 'proper' designers use XHTML.

  22. #72
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by neildonald View Post
    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.
    I don't see how XHTML provides or promotes greater layout and design precision, site consistency or rapid development.
    Although XHTML may promote forwards compatibility there is very little to change to "upgrade" your HTML 4.01 if you write clean code. Quoting attributes, using CDATA, closing all tags, etc. Very minor stuff, as far as "upgrading" goes. It certainly requires less work than using tables and frames and upgrading to a semantic and standard version of your site.


    I also think that sniffing for conforming user agents is hazardous. By serving application/xhtml+xml to browsers that support it and text/html to browsers that don't, you are essentially serving two different sites.
    Not only is that a problem but the actual sniffing itself can be confusing and incorrect. I know I'm beating a dead horse by linking this but http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml for further reading.

  23. #73
    SitePoint Zealot jonboi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Preston suburbs, Lancs, UK
    Posts
    115
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyssen View Post
    There's at least one other type. The type who still only uses CSS for layout, knows all about accessibility issues but also knows very well the differences between HTML and XHTML and chooses (sometimes on a per project basis) to use strict HTML over strict XHTML for the reasons already outlined in this thread by Tommy (and in much more detail in this one) and Charmedlover and others and not just because they think that only 'proper' designers use XHTML.
    dont take me too seriously, the 3 types of web developer was largely a joke. (with bits of truth in it)
    Shine on you crazy diamond.
    Jon's boring blog about nothing.

  24. #74
    padawan silver trophybronze trophy markbrown4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    4,122
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    I use XHTML Strict because I like the syntax and I think it enforces better coding standards.

  25. #75
    SitePoint Addict drjones013's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    216
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by scribbz View Post
    I guess I don't understand just one thing. If XHTML is the successor of HTML why would I find it desirable or indeed necessary to stay with HTML 4? Aren't the methods and practice behind XHTML more modern and up to date? I personally always code for XHTML but was suprised to read people religiously stick to HTML 4 still on here.

    Is there a technical reason for that? It seems to be like how people stick with C when C++ is out which improves and expands the former standard and such things like that but maybe I'm missing something. I would love to enlightened on the issue =)
    It really boils down to what the language was intended to do. XHTML is used if you require XML statements; the only thing is, IE does not support it. By and far IE is the most commonly used browser on the planet in all of its formats so basically the page becomes useless unless you write "text/html" in your document, essentially rendering it as HTML 4.01 Strict. So a lot of people (myself included as I have yet to find a way to XML, not for lack of trying) simply go straight to it and write in HTML 4.01 Strict.


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
  •