HTML 4.01 Transitional DTD is the answer?

[deathshadow60]

you are keen on using an violent language, and spin the things i've said. i would appreciate if you would stop that.

Christmas on a cracker, that's your idea of "violent language"?!? Mein gott are people REALLY this thin skinned out there? (the mind boggles)

As to spinning what you say, with the broken engrish its a bloody miracle anyone can even make sense of any of your posts - most of which appear to be total gibberish.

Off Topic:

Just exactly where are you from that you reverse all your verb-noun structures and use the incorrect tense on everything? I'm suspecting oriental origin, though you are way too thin skinned for mainland. Japan perhaps? Tada atezuppō no kokoro o...

because i love them so much, as presentational hooks or as pure elements, it hurts me to see them abused

How exactly is using them for WHAT THEY ARE FOR abuse?

The DIV and SPAN elements, in conjunction with the id and class attributes, offer a generic mechanism for adding structure to documents. These elements define content to be inline (SPAN) or block-level (DIV) but impose no other presentational idioms on the content. Thus, authors may use these elements in conjunction with style sheets, the lang attribute, etc., to tailor HTML to their own needs and tastes.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#edef-DIV

It's WHAT IT'S FOR!!!

Just because you're using a div as a hook doesn't make it abuse; Where the devil you even got the mere NOTION that it is such is... I lack the words in polite company.

when they will not be slaves for techniques of pure useless presentation that have nothing to do with content. i fight for their rights.

Rights? What rights... ah crudstunk, another of these nutjobs. Lemme guess, you worship at the Church of Stallman as well? Though once again I might simply be completely misunderstanding what you are saying... Every time I see someone throw the word 'rights' into a discussion like this (or any discussion really) I always kneejerk into "great, someone else with a sense of entitlement" as if we're magically entitled to things or treatments... We aren't.

or are you just abusing them? then legalize it, put a transitional on it.

It's completely valid in strict, it is WHAT they are FOR... You know the real comedy about this is, I'm the one usually telling people "that div is unneccessary". I'm failing to see how using the tag for WHAT IT IS FOR is abuse!?! That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard!

you're about to set them free in the near future.

If by near future you mean the decade or so from now when CSS3 hits recommendation status and IE8 is a long-gone memory; and even then there are still things CSS3 can't actually do... Hell, most of the stuff I do in designs CSS3 doesn't do to my satisfaction... and since I can do it just fine without it I'm not certain I see the point; Especially when the pages I code are usually have half the total markup of everybody elses.

Though I see once again you are avoiding the real world example question posed; Just as in the other thread you suddenly 'stopped working' on it because actually doing what the person wanted would have completely contradicted your 'views'.

[felgall]

Transitional is ONLY for when you are still using presentational HTML 3.2 tags that you have not yet finished cleaning up. Once they are cleaned up then using strict IS the appropriate doctype. You may still have further things to clean up to make your HTML perfect but once it validates as HTML 4 strict then that is thr right doctype to use.

To get the sort of thing you are talking about requires HTML standards for web page authors and no such official standards exist. The only standards that the W3C produce are for the web browser creators to define the basic level the browser should understand. The doctype identifies the level you expect the browser to support.

There is no identifier in the web page to specify what standards you are following in writing the web page beyond that which identifies the basic level you expect the browser to support. The only way of adding that information is via comments.

Trying to use an incorrect doctype in order to identify that the page content does not meet some specific in-house standard for semantics of your HTML is going to create problems since there are other things impacted by changing between a strict and transitional doctype that have nothing to do with the HTML due to browsers also using it for other things.

HTML 4 transitional relates 100% to the HTML 3.2 tags that it supports which have been declared to be obsolete in HTML 4 (and thus are marked as deprecated). If your page does not use any of those tags and only uses those in HTML 4 even if it uses all of them incorrectly then your page is still HTML 4 strict since that doctype relates only to what tags you use and not to how you use them.

Misusing the doctype is a million times worse than misusing any other tag.

[Stevie D]

because i love them so much, as presentational hooks or as pure elements, it hurts me to see them abused and being said it's legal (strict). it's not (it's transitional). a better time will come for them, when they will not be slaves for techniques of pure useless presentation that have nothing to do with content.

I'll repeat what I said before:

You might just have to accept that what you want the Strict doctype to be used for is never going to happen.

The standards are the standards, and HTML 4.01 has been a standard for over 10 years. You can't retrospectively change the rules. As DeathShadow has made absolutely crystal clear, what you are calling "abuse" of elements is the exact purpose for which we have those elements.

Now please, let's have an end to it.

[noonnope]

@deathshadow60

you're a strong opinionated person. i respect that. i'm a more tone down person. if you can respect that it's ok. if not, it's also ok. just don't expect me to engage you in another back and forth, tabloid style.

if you think an idea is stupid, say that. no need to resort to personal attacks and intimidating violent tone. i could also assume and divagate about you as a person, but that's not civil in any way. if you're that curious about my nationality i can always extend an touristic invitation for you to see the country i live in.

Just because you're using a div as a hook doesn't make it abuse

if you refer to rounded corner techniques or some image replacement techniques, those specific divs and spans are not used as hooks. it's a hook when it involves actual content. otherwise they are just empty meaningless shells that don't belong there.

You know the real comedy about this is, I'm the one usually telling people "that div is unneccessary".

and probably having a lack in success either. switching sides probably took place the moment i commented on your example, maybe?

[noonnope]

I'll repeat what I said before:

You might just have to accept that what you want the Strict doctype to be used for is never going to happen.

i seem to be forced to remind you again: it's what i don't want strict to be used for. i never intended to imply new uses for strict. on the contrary, it's the limit in it's use, given certain cases, in favor of transitional.

[felgall]

if you refer to rounded corner techniques or some image replacement techniques, those specific divs and spans are not used as hooks. it's a hook when it involves actual content.

No. If it has content in it then it is semantically a part of the document usually with the id or class identifying its semantic meaning.

It is only a hook if its purpose in being there is to make up for deficiencies in browser support of CSS and so additional "meaningless" tags are required in the HTML in order to be able to produce the desired appearance. This reflects a deficiency in the CSS language where you are forced to use HTML (or JavaScript) to make up for that deficiency even though it really ought to be done entirely in the CSS. A hook is tthere in the HTML purely for the purpose of hanging some CSS on it that can't be attached into the HTML any other way.

[noonnope]

Transitional is ONLY for when you are still using presentational HTML 3.2 tags that you have not yet finished cleaning up.

this is where we seem to have a disagreement. at the time, presentational HTML 3.2 tags were the targets, being the main exponents for one of the concepts html 4 was laying down: separation of content from presentation. those specs did not limit that rule to only these cases, but it means to target all of the markup used only for presentation. they were targeted mainly as being the big culprits at that moment. this doesn't stop us to extrapolate the concept to all of the markup that will be impossible to be forseen the moment specs got out, markup that breaks the rule of separating content from presentation. let's not pretend rounded corner techniques means divs used as presentational hooks for content, that's my point.

Trying to use an incorrect doctype in order to identify that the page content does not meet some specific in-house standard for semantics of your HTML is going to create problems since there are other things impacted by changing between a strict and transitional doctype that have nothing to do with the HTML due to browsers also using it for other things.

this is one thing i would love to discuss more. i think it will bring light to that one:

Misusing the doctype is a million times worse than misusing any other tag.

is it worse than the use of xhtml only to say that is helping you with writing down a correct code? and then go ahead and serve it as html? which is a pretty common way of doing things in web programming. not that i endorse this practice at this moment. i embraced html 4.01 strict.

[noonnope]

No. If it has content in it then it is semantically a part of the document usually with the id or class identifying its semantic meaning.

divs and spans are used when semantic neutral elements are needed, that's my understanding, as presentational hooks for content. but these techniques employ empty divs and spans, with no semantic meaning whatsoever. and there is no content in them.

A hook is tthere in the HTML purely for the purpose of hanging some CSS on it that can't be attached into the HTML any other way.

which is about to change, will be no longer needed. so i think i need to adjust in advance.

[gary.turner]

well, what if i try and discuss a best practice involving the use of DTD? am i alowed to do that?

There is no best practice with the DTD. As Yoda was wont to say, "There is no try, only do or not do." Likewise with the grammar; your markup either is either valid or not valid according to the DTD.

you seem a bit rigid with the way i have to do things, with no real reason. last that i recall, all this things are part of a bigger interconected [sic] scheme and separating them creates the confusion you acuse [sic] me off [sic]

The user agent, usually a browser, creates a document object model (DOM), which the CSS and client side scripting language apply against. Again, the DTD is the grammar the UA uses to build the DOM. Invalid markup causes the UA to apply error handling routines as best they can. Valid markup means the UA doesn't have to guess, and there is less chance of a total ****-up. Again, you're either writing valid markup or not. There is no best practice or even leeway.

[…] (which i appreciate it as a way to discredit a person rather than an idea, a technique i would appreciate if you would not further use it on me in the future).

Let's take a look at what I actually said, since you so completely misinterpreted it.

As I read through this thread, I could only think that noonnope has a complete misunderstanding of what a DTD is, […]

Where noonnope got off track is in confusing the DTD and best practice.

That looks nothing like what you're whining about. First, I said you had a misunderstanding where the DTD was concerned, and went on to describe where you were wrong in your assessment. Then I said you confused two different things with one another. Again, that's not a personal attack on your person.

Had I said you were a confused individual, incapable of understanding such a simple concept, that might be considered an ad hominem argument. I said no such thing, though I am coming to suspect it may be true.

gary

[noonnope]

Let's take a look at what I actually said, since you so completely misinterpreted it.

That looks nothing like what you're whining about. First, I said you had a misunderstanding where the DTD was concerned, and went on to describe where you were wrong in your assessment. Then I said you confused two different things with one another. Again, that's not a personal attack on your person.

Had I said you were a confused individual, incapable of understanding such a simple concept, that might be considered an ad hominem argument. I said no such thing, though I am coming to suspect it may be true.

gary

leaving aside technical talk, describing only a half truth, you just confirmed what i was whining about. thank you.

[Stomme poes]

divs and spans are used when semantic neutral elements are needed, that's my understanding, as presentational hooks for content.

"presentational hooks for content"??

That sentence smells totally blue like sunflowers. There's no such thing as a "presentational hook for content".

I'll bet some code examples would make a lot more sense.

[noonnope]

ok Stomme poes, you're not helping me at all

let's me start over, from here.

What is the difference between Strict, Transitional and Frameset?
The difference is which element types and attributes they declare, and how they allow or require element types to nest.

this one proves me way wrong.

The HTML 4.01 Strict DTD emphasises the separation of content from presentation and behaviour. This is the DTD that the W3C recommend for all new documents.

i may have a point for the first part, about separation of content from presentation. the second part however it's pretty definitive.

The HTML 4.01 Transitional DTD is meant to be used transitionally when converting an old-school (pre-HTML4) document into modern markup.

i may have a point here if i lose (pre-HTML4). this is where i think we need an adjustment in thinking: modern markup.

It is not intended to be used for creating new documents. It contains 11 presentational element types and a plethora of presentational attributes that are deprecated in the Strict DTD.

again, pretty definitive, if you don't think about what modern markup means today as opposed to what modern markup meant back then.

Which DOCTYPE should I use?
If you are creating a new web page, the W3C recommend using HTML 4.01 Strict.

If you are trying to convert an ancient HTML 2.0 or HTML 3.2 document to the modern world, you can use HTML 4.01 Transitional until you have managed to transfer all presentational issues to CSS and all behavioural issues to JavaScript.

if i reformulate this, thinking in modern markup terms:

Which DOCTYPE should I use?
If you are creating a new web page, the W3C recommend using HTML 4.01 Strict.

If you are trying to convert an ancient HTML 2.0 or HTML 3.2 or HTML 4.01 document to the modern world, you can use HTML 4.01 Transitional until you have managed to transfer all presentational issues to CSS (regarding certain techniques like rounded corners or image replacement techniques) and all behavioural issues to JavaScript.

then i also may have a point.

what are the beside obvious drawbacks of using an extended meaning for this "modern" transitional?

[Mittineague]

If something is coded like

<div class="bold">
  <div class="large">
    <div class="red">
      <span class="italic">Hey I'm Strict!<span>
    </div>
  </div>
</div>

It doesn't matter what DOCTYPE it has, it isn't right!

BTW, the forum is for discussion so Children Please Play Nice!

[AlexDawson]

Now we just need Alex, Paul O'B and the Stupid Dutch Kitty to chime in and we'll have the superfecta.

Well you've had the Dutch kitty so I guess it's my turn to draw swords

i'm not trying a spin. i made it very clear: the use of valid strict elements to achieve transitional techniques are turning an otherwise strict validated document in a wolf in sheeps clothes. and this wolf should be exposed as a "modern" transitional.

I understand exactly what you're trying to imply throughout the thread and to some extent I agree with you that adding semantically redundant code (such as divitis, spanmania or classitis) does reduce the quality of the code in terms of being clean and tight, however the thing you seem to have missed is that when DIV and SPAN are used (even when their done in excess) it doesn't qualify as transitional markup because removing extrenous markup isn't part of what the DTD is about. The W3C validator and the semantic rules for appropriate use of code simply don't have the contextual awareness to be able to validly say that you're either using too much or too little code, or invoke best practices that you are using too much or too little to represent your content - that is something which is down to the nature of the content and the design. To imply the Transitional Doctype should cover such relevance would be impossible to maintain or police. Transitional by definition is to ease the transition from one standard (such as outdated practices like accessibility poor frames or style within structural element usage) in favour of new ones, not to dictate to people what may be classed as situational semantics (as best practices governing when and where elements should be used are very hard to define).

Because DIV and SPAN by default have no strict policy as to what kind of content they should be used within, that gives them added flexibility in that they represent structural boundaries of content with no specified semantic meaning. While it's easy to say that such elements are inherently stylistic because they don't hold semantic value, consider the case of Microformats... where semantic relevance is given where no appropriate element exists (such as marking up a vCard) where DIV's and spans are wrapped around a certain specified piece of textual importance (like a persons name) where no <name> element exists to represent it (and it holds no importance beyond how it could be interpreted when reading). This totally counteracts your claim that such usage would specify stylistic attribution alone, elements with no semantic value CAN be given semantic relevance in certain contexts, they are not transitional just because their being used outside of what the specification declares or the syntax of the DTD recognises (they're just being given additional relevance). Transitional code is about eliminating now-redundant functions which have been updated with better methods (like CSS which better describes and provides stylistic attribution), it's NOT about stating that poorly structured code thereby violates some sort of doctrine of hierarchy or context within the content. And their not always just wrappers for stylistic code.

[noonnope]

this is probably the most flip-the-coin-under-the-table technique i had to counter this far. when i say divs and spans are to give structure to the document, i get a counter saying these are semantically neutral elements that can be used for presentation. when i say that these elements can be used (only, in my opinion, for strict) as simple presentational hooks, i am reminded that they are in fact for giving structure to the document.

i understand specs: div and span give structure and provide with a neutral container than can be used for presentational purposes without affecting the semantics of the document.

the weak point i see when one uses divs and spans: specs should have said something on the line of <p>:

We discourage authors from using empty P elements. User agents should ignore empty P elements

that was a bad common technique, that was spotted, using <p>s the wrong way, and was amended in the specs. if the use of empty, nested empty, neighboring empty divs and spans was a common technique for achieving presentational feats only, outside the content concern, at the time this specs were written, i'm sure something similar along the line of empty <p>s would have appeared in them.

you are right, validators can't decide over semantics. so that's why it's our job to further decide where simple tools fail. but i'm pretty sure that these markup constructs, like certain rounded corner techniques or image replacement techniques, can be easily spotted by a validator and marked as warnings, if nothing else. i get that transitional DTD for documents with such constructs may appear to some as an extraordinarily bad decision. but my hole point is that we constantly need to reasses what specs were saying then with what it's happening in the present days, along with the future prospects, because a transition is waiting for us in the near future, and it involves, among others, valid strict markup that is in fact a presentational only construct, construct that can/will be done with css. the future is not limited to html5+css3. and what yesterday seemed a permanent solution to a problem, today it's only a transitional way to resolving it. an adjustment is in place. and i, for one, felt the need to point that out, in a way that i saw feet to put trough the grinding machine of other more experienced minds, using sitepoint forum, to help me discover valid pros and cons.

[Stomme poes]

but i'm pretty sure that these markup constructs, like certain rounded corner techniques or image replacement techniques, can be easily spotted by a validator and marked as warnings, if nothing else.

I don't know how easy it would be to have it spotted by the validator. It's a grammar-checker, not a content checker. You'd have to turn it into a content checker (maybe it is easy enough to have it look for an opening tag, then a closing tag, with nothing inside it (<div></div> for example), but that still wouldn't catch mine: I have space characters inside my empty anchors so that Opera users can focus on them).
Second, the CSS validator already spits out so many warnings all the time (because it can't seem to tell the layering of boxes and inheritance of colours, so gives a huge amount of "foreground and background colours conflict" warnings) which we then learn to ignore as wolf-crying. I believe if the HTML validator started warning about content instead of just structure and grammar, developers would start ignoring those as well.

In any case, I don't believe you'll convince me to use a Transitional doctype for using Strict grammar with common CSS techniques. No, I don't believe it's more "honest". I believe it's more honest to use a Tranny doctype when using deprecated tags and attributes (as I did back when I had to use the target attribute until we got server sessions working properly), but grammar is grammar and that's what Strict means. Therefore, my markup is Strict, and so that is the doctype I use.

[noonnope]

I don't know how easy it would be to have it spotted by the validator. It's a grammar-checker, not a content checker. You'd have to turn it into a content checker (maybe it is easy enough to have it look for an opening tag, then a closing tag, with nothing inside it (<div></div> for example), but that still wouldn't catch mine: I have space characters inside my empty anchors so that Opera users can focus on them).

that's the idea, yes. it's no problem to me if it's not catching yours or these constructs (which employ easy spotting patterns). it would be nice, that's what i'm saying, as currently used validations don't cover so many bad uses, and that is not ok.

In any case, I don't believe you'll convince me to use a Transitional doctype for using Strict grammar with common CSS techniques. No, I don't believe it's more "honest". I believe it's more honest to use a Tranny doctype when using deprecated tags and attributes (as I did back when I had to use the target attribute until we got server sessions working properly), but grammar is grammar and that's what Strict means. Therefore, my markup is Strict, and so that is the doctype I use.

that's ok also. for me a feedback is all that i need, as long as it's a civil one all i'm saying, things are changing, and so must you're concepts and the way of doing things. i thought of this one, that suits me. it may be appealing or not to you, it may make you think i'm not conforming. well, who is? when one preaches around an issue, at the same time he may be forced to give out to himself on another matter. i look at my idea to be a self degrading rule for the sake of improvement, taking account of the old specs, present markup habits and future developments.

[Stomme poes]

it would be nice, that's what i'm saying, as currently used validations don't cover so many bad uses, and that is not ok.

You know, you could send this as an idea to the W3C. Seriously. There are validators who check for well-formed-ness as seen in XML, and there are checkers who see if you have a logical document structure. I've seen about 6 or so different XHTML validators floating around... surely someone could and would make a validator who checks for things like empty tags (a content validator).

all i'm saying, things are changing, and so must you're concepts and the way of doing things

Until CSS3 is deployable cross browser in the real world, no, my way of doing things cannot change. My concepts do not have to change; I would prefer fewer tags and sandbags. I would also prefer a flying car. However, the future is tomorrow, not today (unless you live in New Zeeland... those people are living tomorrow today!).

[noonnope]

You know, you could send this as an idea to the W3C... surely someone could and would make a validator who checks for things like empty tags (a content validator).

i believe this will happen eventually, with or without my lobby, but thanks

Until CSS3 is deployable cross browser in the real world, no, my way of doing things cannot change. My concepts do not have to change; I would prefer fewer tags and sandbags. I would also prefer a flying car. However, the future is tomorrow, not today (unless you live in New Zeeland... those people are living tomorrow today!).

at the current state of web, i don't think it will be possible to wait that long like in the past, as it was/is the case with ie6, or html3 or css1. i don't see a decade time out before a new unified web model emerges. the web platform has become a serious business with serious players. when this kind of money is at stake, i see a revolution happening pretty fast. things have changed since 2000, even 2005. you cannot compare then and now in terms of stakes or globalization. so it's pretty unrealistic to believe things will continue to play out like in the past.

but, if i was to make a case against me, i would say this to my self: keep your eyes looking up, you may see some flying pigs announcing the arrival of the flying cars

[Stomme poes]

I WANT T0 BELIEVE

...the truth is OUT THERE

[xhtmlcoder]

HTML Lints will generally "trim" completely plain empty content elements, i.e. <p></p> and so-forth but obviously if they have an attribute value they will be left intact.

[felgall]

HTML Lints will generally "trim" completely plain empty content elements, i.e. <p></p> and so-forth but obviously if they have an attribute value they will be left intact.

Perhaps what the OP is actually looking for is an HTML LINT. That will do a massive cleanup on their HTML 4 strict code to make it look more like a semantically correct web page is supposed to look.

[noonnope]

in the last stage of transition, after achieving the visual design concerning these techniques some other way, that doesn't involve empty markup elements, before changing back transitional to strict, a tool to get rid of all the superflous markup would be welcome, i guess.

[Immerse]

in the last stage of transition, after achieving the visual design concerning these techniques some other way, that doesn't involve empty markup elements, before changing back transitional to strict, a tool to get rid of all the superflous markup would be welcome, i guess.

Yes, until all your clients start calling you asking why their site is 'broken' and where their gradients and round-corners have disappeared to.

Lets not forget that a large portion of the sites on the Internet are created by developers for their clients. As long as the client is the one with the money, how far are you going to go in telling them they can't have rounded corners because then there'll be superfluous div tags in his pages. He'll take his business elsewhere.

[noonnope]

you're quoting me, but not really...

in the last stage of transition

this implies a process. a changing process. not a terminator process.

it's always best to check the facts before posting why would they call me in the first place?

1. i never said: kill rounded corners. i said, put a proper name for them: transitional. until a better way comes along. then, if that better way involves also getting rid of that unnecessary (form the actual content point of view) markup, than put a strict on the markup, and probably this time it will be more truthfully.

2. please see this in the post you're quoting:

after achieving the visual design concerning these techniques some other way

i think it's pretty clear i'm not trying to stuff my client with unnecessary nor do i want to strip him from a visual design feat but some other ways for these techniques i'm sure will come some day, and they'll be better. and when you'll need to look up those pages needing a facelift, your job would be easy then: those pretty recent pages with transitional doctype ("modern" transitional).

it's all about a rule, to remind you about a "compromised markup", that will probably need more work in the future. nothing more. it doesn't involve changing the rules for doctype, killing visual effects, or any other brute force action.

following your line of thinking, all can be forgiven if it satisfies the client. even tables for layout, as long as it has rounded corners

well, that was my hole point: do what your client wants, but be a better web developer than he is or his under-age-wysiwyg-wiz son. or his nephew. or niece. you get the point. understand, accept and acknowledge that there is something wrong there. don't swipe it under the carpet and pretend all is clean.