Re: HTML 4.01 Transitional vs. HTML 3.2 Final

> Well. No. Actually it is the W3 specifically saying it really should not
be
> used that convinced me.

So, we should all bow down to the superior being of the WWWC and not use
4.01 transitional, because they suggest it.  Sorry Fuzzy, but you just
crawled out on a limb here.  The "Mommy says" argument is lost on me.  If we
are not supposed to use a DTD, why did they bother to publish it?

> I don't use transitional DTD's because I read the definition of
> "transitional" at the W3 site. I surf with Java Off (as most experienced
> web surfers I know) and I KNOW CSS support stinks.

How many do you know?  Evidently you don't know me.  You're kidding with
this, right?  You know a couple folks that probably listened to you and now
you're telling us this is a consensus???  No way!  I know  from personal
experience that 50% of the public doesn't even know how to turn JS off
because that function is buried deep in the browser.

Because your JS is off, the rest of us shouldn't use JS???

I use JS for rollover buttons, pop-up information windows and most
importantly of all to validate shopping cart data because half the users out
there are not smart enough to order something without being told to also
select a color and a size.

> Now, You tell me:
>
> 1) THE organization for standards recommends not using the dtd.

First off,  they are a self appointed organization.  They exercise no
official control over any municipality or organization.  Second off they
make "proposals"  they don't "make standards."  There is a whole world of
difference in there.

Recommendations are just that - RECOMENDATIONS.  They are not mantra, we get
to make logical decisions based on them.

Your decisions are your own, but you seem to be carrying a torch here and
trying to push for some concensus on a pretty old "proposed" standard. It
concerns me that you might be influencing a lot of newbee's with your
constant harping in this "3.2 Strict" thinking of yours.

I myself don't like to write web pages that are boring and devoid of any
modern abilities becaused three percent of the viewing public out there
can't be bothered to upgrade from a seven year old browser or a 486-33
computer.  This is exactly what you are proposing when you exhort us to
blind obedience to an old standard.

It's one thing to be too modern, and loose a significant portion of the
viewing public by being at the bleeding edge of technology. It's another to
fall by the wayside because of rigid thinking.

> 2) The DTD includes CSS which the *vast* majority of browsers still can
>not understand. Most of the experienced surfers I know cruise with Java
off.

The vast majority of browsers out there are M.S.I.E. 4.x and 5.x and they
support significant enough portions of CSS to be of great use if you know
how.  Like everything else here... it's if you know how.  You'll never learn
how when your head is stuck in the sand.

> I don't understand why anyone would use a transitional DTD in the first
> place. The only thing I can see that it has going for it is that it allows
> you to use markup common sense (and the only organization for standards on
> the web) says you really shouldn't be using in the first place.

Now you're getting insulting.   If we don't do it your way, we lack common
sense?  There's some Fuzzy logic if I ever saw it.

The reason that transitional DTD's came about was that there was a lot of
complaints from developers about the rigidity of the strict DTD's. The
strict DTD's disallowed almost everything of real use.

They are not the only organization on the web that is for standards.  They
are bigger and older perhaps and more well known.  It could be argued today
that M.S. is probably the real standards setter.

Paul Wilson
webgooru(at)gte.net

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