Re: HTML 4.01 Transitional vs. HTML 3.2 Final

Technically speaking: Yes.

*Many* other attributes are allowed in the 4.X transitional DTD that make
it "worse" than a strict DTD, even a 3.2 DTD, in terms of cross
browser/platform stability and predictability.

Take the "FACE" attribute we have been discussing for example.

Prior to the 5.X versions of the "big two", at least browsers "thought"
that with the face attribute being MSIE specific, they could render the
document while thinking (internally) it was designed for MSIE. Can you
imagine the browser's "surprise" when it runs across other "proprietary"
markup that is ~not~ MSIE specific - in the same document?

The result is often quite ugly, because it get's "confused". Remember, up
until the 4.X transitional DTD (late version 4.x browsers) there was
virtually no support for CSS, and sure as hell, NN was not going to display
FACE attributes ! So browsers version 4 and below (older) for sure have no
"ground work" to allow them to render 4.x transitional DTD's reliably.

YES. I realize that the DTD is supposed to be a pathway that allows the
browser to go "seek out and find" the rules it is to use to display the
page if those rules are not already "on board" the browser. . . but, in
reality, that works as well as browsers ignoring code they do not understand.

Now, we ALL know that browsers are ______ supposed _____ to ignore markup
they do not understand. And in a FEW cases, they do. But if you have spent
any time surfing, and looking at source code, you realize that as often as
not - browsers crash or display . . . 'weirdly' when they encounter code
they do not understand.

Case in point:

Just this morning, I hopped over to USAToday to see what's happening in the
real world. It took two restarts to get the page loaded. When it did load
it is (was) illegible. The screen was "scrambled" with words overlapping
images, images overlaying text, and one segment was TWO FEET off the screen
to the right.

I viewed the source code . . . 4.x transitional. And it sure looks to me
like they included every single element of that DTD in one page. I was
using WIN 98 (SE)  and MSIE 5.X on a machine with ADSL and 256 MB of RAM.

I rest my case.

In closing, I have to reiterate what Ted pointed out this week:

NO MATTER WHAT - do your homework first. Write to the audience you expect
to visit your site.


If you are selling pencils to school's DO NOT use Flash. If you are selling
games to hard core Gamers, you BETTER use Flash. . . . I'm the first guy to
point out that there is no way in hell to validate Flash, but here I sit
(highly) recommending it's use. Why do you reckon that is? :-)

It may help to get across the concept using my closing statement:

"If you are writing a COMMERCIAL site where the owner is dependant on that
site to generate revenue, YOU better use a stable and reliable (?proven?)
language to do that. ~~~~~~~ No ~~~~~~~~ transitional DTD fits that
description by it's very nature."

See? Because *demographics* dictate the very bottom line in site
construction, or should, even contradictions such as that, actually make
sense . . . well . . .  to me, anyway ;-).

HTH,
Fuzzy.


At 12:38 PM 2/4/01 +0100, Gregor Pirnaver wrote:
>Is HTML 4.01 Transitional *without* CSS more unreliable 
>standard than HTML 3.2 Final? Why?
______________________________________________________________
Captain F.M. O'Lary
webmaster(at)canopy.net
If we're not supposed to eat late-night snacks, why is there a light in the
refrigerator?
------------------------------------------------------------------

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