Re: HTML 4.01 Transitional vs. HTML 3.2 Final

At 04:01 PM 2/6/01 +0100, you wrote:
>W3C recommends that authors produce HTML 4 documents 
>instead of HTML 3.2 documents.
>Authors should use the Strict DTD when possible, but may 
>use the Transitional DTD when support for presentation 
>attribute and elements is required.

You know. I think we are *actually* arguing the same side of the same case
from different perspectives.

*You* keep mentioning that 4 transitional - without the CSS and JavaScript
- is stable and reliable. Holy cow. What da heck *is* 4.x without CSS and
JavaScript?

Basically: 3.2 final with a couple of depreciated elements.

*MY* argument against the transitional dtd is that it allows the
incorporation of unstable and unsupported elements (unsupported in the case
of CSS and unstable in the case of JS because we still have folks that
think a canned editor that turns out CRAP for code can still some how
miraculously turn out JS that doesn't kill viewers machines).

Dang it. As much as I enjoy a good argument, I think we are on the same
side here. Even if we are getting to the same place via different routes.
Bummer.


>
>
>> 1) THE organization for standards recommends not using
>> the dtd.
>
>It is a recommendation. It was created to be used.

I have a completely different opinion on why it was created. I think it has
a LOT more to do with pressure generated by editor manufacturers that make
billions selling crap for software to folks who (innocently enough in most
cases) believe the B.S. that "anyone can create multi media web
presentations with OUR software. And not have to know a ~bit~ of coding.".

But, neither of our opinions matter a twit. It is there, and folks are
using it. I would propose that you and I as  "veterans" have the
responsibility to make sure the newbies here know the ramifications of
their choices.

Personally, I think we are *both* doing an excellent job of generating
"food for thought" on this issue regardless of our individual opinions. <we
are ~so~ cool!>

>
>
>> 2) The DTD includes CSS which the *vast*
>> majority of browsers still can not understand.
>
>*Vast* majority of browsers "understand" plain (without 
>CSS) Transitional HTML 4.01.

See, there we go again. You are absolutely correct. How am I supposed to
argue with that? TOTALLY unfair of you. 4.x without CSS (and JS) is pretty
much 3.2 final. Agree?

So why not use a stable, standard, reliable DTD in the first place? No. It
need not be 3.2. 4.x Strict is just fine! :-)

>
>
>> I don't understand why anyone would use a transitional
>> DTD in the first place.
>
>Because CSS doesn't work (yet?).

And doesn't that make you want to cry? What in the heck is the problem
here? Can somebody get Mr. Netscape and Ms. MSIE in here and let's ask them
why they are not getting with the program in a timely manner?? I would
**really** like to know!!

:-)
Fuzzy.

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA