Having a doctype, any doctype, should stop the w3c validator from complaining about there not being one. The trick is to use the right one. You can either use a doctype that goes along the HTML mark-up you're using, or change the HTML to comply with the doctype. For example, if I want to use frames, I need to use a frameset doctype or not use frames. If I want to use certain tags or attributes, eg. "target", then I need to use a transitional doctype or not use the tags/attributes.
I guessing that it would be easier for you to find a doctype that suits the mark-up created by FrontPage rather than fix the HTML to conform to a particular doctype. This is a problem with "page creating" applications (AFAIK only with dreamweaver is it possible to create valid mark-up) and a reason I prefer to hand-code.
For example the "current" standard is to keep style in CSS and out of the HTML. Hence some of the "style" errors.
In any case, I can see by the valdator errors that you should not use a strict doctype. Nor is it likely that you should use an XHTML doctype.
This leaves 3 choices
- HTML 4.01 Transitional
- HTML 3.2
- HTML 2.0
the doctypes are
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">
To be clear, you tried the HTML 3.2 doctype and the validator said "This page is not Valid HTML 3.2!" and gave the above errors?
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">