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 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 183
  1. #126
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    1,924
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If you really want to know why HTML is better than XHTML I recommend to read Anne's blog:

    http://annevankesteren.nl/

    I could fish out some posts, but I don't have time. They are not too hard to find, considering like every posts is pro-HTML.

  2. #127
    Level 8 Chinese guy Archbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Somewhere in this vast universe
    Posts
    3,741
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by drhowarddrfine View Post
    Ok. So let's say you don't need to abide by standards or HTML 4.01 Transitional "for some strange reason". Prithy tell us what and how you mark up your pages. How do you get browsers to display your pages without standard markup/HTML of any kind whatsoever.

    I do use basic HTML, it really don't care if its standard complaint or not because there are no benefits to being standards complaints. All you tell me of these amazing theoretical benefits, but can't show any results of how a standard complaint site would be more successful than a non-standards complaint one. I don't care about your theoretical benefits I want to see results and you have yet to provide any.

    How many users do you think go like "Oh crap, I'm leaving this site because it doesn't validate with W3"?

    I'll tell you how many -- Zero.

  3. #128
    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 stillinbeta View Post
    The turning point will come in a few years when you sit back and realise that html isn't improving, support for it isn't improving, and nobody's actually doing anything new with it. Html really just doesn't matter.
    You keep saying that. Have you seen these?

    Victory: new HTML WG
    Reinventing HTML
    Web Applications 1.0 (aka HTML5)
    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.

  4. #129
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    25
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Kravvitz View Post
    You keep saying that. Have you seen these?
    It's years away from being completed, implemented and distributed to enough people to be a viable solution, and it's going to be antiquated before it's even finalised.

    For sophisticated cross-platform applications, there already exist several proprietary solutions (such as Mozilla's XUL and Macromedia's Flash). These solutions are evolving faster than any standards process could follow, and the requirements are evolving even faster.

  5. #130
    Level 8 Chinese guy Archbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Somewhere in this vast universe
    Posts
    3,741
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Kravvitz View Post
    Yeah, I have seen these. Every year or two, people bring something like this up, and honestly its never gone anywhere.

  6. #131
    code ninja hamstu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Montréal, Canada
    Posts
    375
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've used XHTML Strict for quite some time, I always saw it as the right way. But now that I've come back here to Sitepoint, I'm getting the feeling that XHTML isn't the best choice. I'm going to consider HTML Strict for future projects, at least not now, while true XHTML support is poor.

    I'd like to try and get into this debate, but all that I can say has already been said (thank you Tommy), so I'll leave you with some wise words, "do your best."

    I know, I know, it's cheesy. But it keeps me sane when reading threads like this.

  7. #132
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Archbob View Post
    Yeah, I have seen these. Every year or two, people bring something like this up, and honestly its never gone anywhere.
    Really? Do you seriously mean that every year or two an entire HTML specification gets written? Or didn't you look at it hard enough this time to understand what it is?

    For the record, HTML is being improved, and new stuff is being implemented.
    Simon Pieters

  8. #133
    Level 8 Chinese guy Archbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Somewhere in this vast universe
    Posts
    3,741
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Not the entire specification gets written, but people are constantly trying to revise and improve it and its gotten nowhere because nobody really cares. In the end, the majority of webpages are going to be coded the same way. People have been touting these w3 standards for the better part of a decade now, and still no one cares.

    Non-complaint code will continued to be rendered correctly without hinderence and internet will go on like it always has. There will be a few in places like SPF to tout the new "standards" or features, but the majority simply won't care enough or will just use the few gizmos in it that they find useful.

  9. #134
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    25
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zcorpan View Post
    For the record, HTML is being improved, and new stuff is being implemented.
    A small subset of new features scattered across 6 or 7 browsers. Hardly a plus for html when Adobe's doing stuff like web based video editing with Flex.

    The WHATWG work-in-progress says it can't keep up with proprietry technologies and changing requirements, and that pretty much sums up html in general.

  10. #135
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Archbob View Post
    Not the entire specification gets written, but people are constantly trying to revise and improve it and its gotten nowhere because nobody really cares.
    It seems at least Apple, Opera, Mozilla and Microsoft cares.
    Quote Originally Posted by Archbob View Post
    In the end, the majority of webpages are going to be coded the same way.
    How Web pages are written changes over time. Web pages written 10 years ago was very different from how pages are written today, and presumably Web pages written in 10 years will be different from how pages are written today (hopefully it will change to the better).
    Quote Originally Posted by Archbob View Post
    People have been touting these w3 standards for the better part of a decade now, and still no one cares.
    What was being discussed here is not from the W3C (although the W3C did recently start a new working group to work on this), and didn't exist before 2004.
    Quote Originally Posted by Archbob View Post
    Non-complaint code will continued to be rendered correctly without hinderence and internet will go on like it always has.
    Yes. (In fact, HTML5 has requirements of how to handle non-compliant code, so UAs that implement HTML5 will be more interoperable in their handling of non-compliant code than today's browsers.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Archbob View Post
    There will be a few in places like SPF to tout the new "standards" or features, but the majority simply won't care enough or will just use the few gizmos in it that they find useful.
    Makes sense. We can't force people to care.
    Simon Pieters

  11. #136
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by stillinbeta View Post
    A small subset of new features scattered across 6 or 7 browsers. Hardly a plus for html when Adobe's doing stuff like web based video editing with Flex.
    Better than just sitting idle and not doing anything about it. You have to start somewhere, no?
    Quote Originally Posted by stillinbeta View Post
    The WHATWG work-in-progress says it can't keep up with proprietry technologies and changing requirements, and that pretty much sums up html in general.
    So what do you propose? We give up on HTML and let proprietary formats take over? Or try to improve HTML so that it is suitable for the new requirements and so that it can continue to be the publishing format of the Web?
    Simon Pieters

  12. #137
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    25
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zcorpan View Post
    Better than just sitting idle and not doing anything about it. You have to start somewhere, no?
    Yes you have to start somewhere, but the internet is a fast-moving environment and you have to build and keep momentum. Look at how much Flash has progressed over the last 10 years .. Macromedia never stood still and now they have huge penetration and a sophisticated platform.

    So what do you propose? We give up on HTML and let proprietary formats take over? Or try to improve HTML so that it is suitable for the new requirements and so that it can continue to be the publishing format of the Web?
    Fast track the whole revision process of course. WHATWG's work in progress is already 12 months old and it's not finished. With the current incredibly slow process either Adobe or MS is going to be powering all the cutting-edge stuff by the time html 5 is finalised.

  13. #138
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by stillinbeta View Post
    Fast track the whole revision process of course. WHATWG's work in progress is already 12 months old and it's not finished. With the current incredibly slow process either Adobe or MS is going to be powering all the cutting-edge stuff by the time html 5 is finalised.
    Thanks for contributing so that it can be finished sooner.
    Simon Pieters

  14. #139
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    276
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Archbob View Post
    How many users do you think go like "Oh crap, I'm leaving this site because it doesn't validate with W3"?
    I don't, but I do leave sites when they have broken unusable javascript, ugly styles or flash. How many of those sites validate? Very few.

    Quote Originally Posted by stillinbeta View Post
    Yes you have to start somewhere, but the internet is a fast-moving environment and you have to build and keep momentum. Look at how much Flash has progressed over the last 10 years .. Macromedia never stood still and now they have huge penetration and a sophisticated platform.
    Mmmm, but zero penetration in the 64 bit market.
    "Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what
    it might appear to others that what you were or might
    have been was not otherwise than what you had been
    would have appeared to them to be otherwise."

  15. #140
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Please say that you are kidding.

    All I can say is that if there is a standard then you should at all times, other than when it is important not to, stick to the standard.

    I mean you wouldn't drive on the right hand side (or left if you're not British). You wouldn't turn up to a Vicars and Tarts fancy dress party dressed as a dog.

  16. #141
    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 saracen-moor View Post
    You wouldn't turn up to a Vicars and Tarts fancy dress party dressed as a dog.
    I dunno. Depends if you've got suspenders on or not.

  17. #142
    Level 8 Chinese guy Archbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Somewhere in this vast universe
    Posts
    3,741
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No, Apple, Opera, Mozilla, and Microsoft only pretend to care and do something about it, in the end, they all still render non-complaint code and as long as they do that the vast majority of the web will not be w3 complaint.

    The truth is the movement in the technology of the web does not rely and does not hinge on w3. It is more following technologies like Flash shockwave, AJAX, and other new technologies that don't really care about W3 compliance.

    W3 is not a requirement and will never be, it is a recommendation. Its not like a law that says drive on the right side of the road, its more like a speed limit, a suggestion. Now in America, not many people actually go at the speed limit.

  18. #143
    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 Archbob View Post
    The truth is the movement in the technology of the web does not rely and does not hinge on w3. It is more following technologies like Flash shockwave, AJAX, and other new technologies that don't really care about W3 compliance.
    That's not necessarily true. There are a number of big name CSS layout sites that at least attempt to follow standards. They're not moving to Flash sites.

    In the UK and many other EU countries business sites have to be accessible by law - to achieve accessibility you really need to be following web standards.

    (is the speed limit where you are really only a suggestion? Over here it's the legal limit)
    Little Blue Plane Web Design
    Blood, Sweat & Rust - A Land Rover restoration project

  19. #144
    Level 8 Chinese guy Archbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Somewhere in this vast universe
    Posts
    3,741
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The speed limit is a suggestion, 10 over the speed limit is good on most roads, 15 over on highways.

    There are plenty of .co.uk domains that are not w3 standard, I don't think its having that much of an effect, besides the majority of the web is blogs and personal pages and these will never really follow standards.

    I used to try to make all my stuff complaint in HTML 4.01 transitional, but then I realize it was a waste of time and stopped.

  20. #145
    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 Archbob View Post
    The speed limit is a suggestion, 10 over the speed limit is good on most roads, 15 over on highways.
    Seriously? Never heard of that one before !

    You know Archbob - the thing that really gets me? It's that (bearing in mind that no-one's perfect and we all make mistakes) building a site that's standard-compliant really isn't that much harder than not bothering at all.

    I think that's why I don't understand people that don't bother trying to comply to standards. If it was extremely difficult then I'd understand (time and money etc etc).

    So aside from people who are pure Flash developers or those that use Ajax/Ruby/whateverfad without progressive enhancement - what is it that you do that that would fail standards that you can't do without or can't be bothered to change?
    Little Blue Plane Web Design
    Blood, Sweat & Rust - A Land Rover restoration project

  21. #146
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I do use basic HTML, it really don't care if its standard complaint
    But you said you don't follow any standards but you follow HTML. Which is it? Now you say HTML doesn't care if it's valid but it's the browsers that DO care and are only required to make the best of invalid code. You do not know what you are talking about.
    I used to try to make all my stuff complaint in HTML 4.01 transitional, but then I realize it was a waste of time and stopped.
    So then you decided you would write invalid, error ridden code instead. Great idea! Brilliant in fact.
    they all still render non-complaint code and as long as they do that the vast majority of the web will not be w3 complaint.
    Rendering non-compliant code is required of all browsers according to the standard so they ARE following W3C guidelines but, oh, I forgot, you've never read it.
    It is more following technologies like Flash shockwave, AJAX, and other new technologies that don't really care about W3 compliance.
    There are many more HTML web sites than any of those technologies you mention. And, oh, btw, Ajax is javascript and XML which IS W3C compliant. You cannot write invalid XML or javascript and get it to work.

  22. #147
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    especially if your trying to integrate your design with a certain script.
    You write scripts? How creative are your scripts? I'm sure you don't follow any standards there, do you?

  23. #148
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by Archbob View Post
    Sorry, the browser just went bonkers on me, delete all the repeat posts please.
    It's because the page hasn't been built with Web Standards in mind - how can they expect it to work properly if they don't even validate?

  24. #149
    Level 8 Chinese guy Archbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Somewhere in this vast universe
    Posts
    3,741
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by markbrown4 View Post
    It's because the page hasn't been built with Web Standards in mind - how can they expect it to work properly if they don't even validate?
    No, its actually because my VPN networks sucks at work and it lags.

    Web pages work fine without validation. How well they work and how fast they load has nothing to do with standards.

    I don't bother to validate code anymore, like I said, because it offers no benefits. You guys have yet in all these posts, failed to address this point.

    drHoward, I have no idea what your trying to get at, your missing the entire point. I don't bother to validate my pages because it takes extra time -- time better spent doing something else, because validating my pages provides no added value to me.

    To sum up my point, my users don't give a damn if my pages are complaint are not, so I don't bother with it anymore.

  25. #150
    SitePoint Addict drjones013's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    216
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Standardized formats aren't as critical on the level of a single developer-- when you're working with several some type of standard is necessary (I would almost go so far as to say vital); the W3C recommendations were invaluable in the development of the information site that my staff developed at our corporation.

    At the risk of sounding OT the W3C standards made the development of our SDLC model MUCH easier to produce-- I can see where an individual building a site would think that standards aren't as useful (not useless, but less useful). It's just not feasible to have more than two people work on a project without something like the DTD's.

    To address ArchBob's point no, my corporation frankly doesn't care if it meets W3C standards-- they also wonder why their internal sites aren't as rugged as our standards-following product.


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
  •