Re: HTML 4.01 Transitional vs. HTML 3.2 Final

by "Captain F.M. O'Lary" <ctfuzzy(at)canopy.net>

Date:	Fri, 06 Feb 2004 06:52:15 -0500
To:	Gregor Pirnaver <gregor.pirnaver(at)email.si>, "Captain F.M. O'Lary" <ctfuzzy(at)canopy.net>, jtpolk(at)texas.net, hwg-basics(at)mail.hwg.org
References:	canopy canopy2
	todo: View Thread, Original

At 12:24 PM 2/6/01 +0100, Gregor Pirnaver wrote:
>Invalid and backwards incompatible XHTML page relying on 
>JavaScript and CSS doesn't work. This is your argument 
>against Transitional HTML 4.01?

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

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.

Now, You tell me:

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

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.

Perspective?

:-)
Fuzzy.
______________________________________________________________
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