Re: HTML 4.01 Transitional vs. HTML 3.2 Final

by Gregor Pirnaver <gregor.pirnaver(at)email.si>

Date:	Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:01:37 +0100
To:	"Captain F.M. O'Lary" <ctfuzzy(at)canopy.net>
Cc:	hwg-basics(at)hwg.org
References:	canopy canopy2
	todo: View Thread, Original

On Friday 06 February 2004 12:52 you wrote:
> Well. No. Actually it is the W3 specifically saying it
> really should not be used that convinced me.

W3C recommends that authors produce HTML 4 documents=20
instead of HTML 3.2 documents.
Authors should use the Strict DTD when possible, but may=20
use the Transitional DTD when support for presentation=20
attribute and elements is required.

> 1) THE organization for standards recommends not using
> the dtd.

It is a recommendation. It was created to be used.

> 2) The DTD includes CSS which the *vast*
> majority of browsers still can not understand.

*Vast* majority of browsers "understand" plain (without=20
CSS) Transitional HTML 4.01.

> I don't understand why anyone would use a transitional
> DTD in the first place.

Because CSS doesn't work (yet?).

--=20
Gregor @ Mandrake 7.2 -> KDE 2.0 -> Kmail 1.1.99 -> ;-)

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

This page is part of a preserved archive of archives.hwg.org. The site is no longer active and its content is not maintained. For enquiries about this archive, write to archive(at)iwanet.org.