1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Xhtml strict vs transitional

Discussion in 'HTML & Website Design' started by n3r0x, Dec 2, 2009.

?

Transitional VS Strict, What do you use?

Poll closed Dec 9, 2009.
  1. Strict

    7 vote(s)
    77.8%
  2. Transitional

    2 vote(s)
    22.2%
  1. #1
    Hi!

    I'm having problem deciding which I should continue using.
    Should I continue with strict or transitional? (Ofcourse I am talking about validated xhtml)

    To be honest I don´t like any of them but new times require new coding styles.
     
    n3r0x, Dec 2, 2009 IP
  2. Mentalhead

    Mentalhead Active Member

    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    3
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    53
    #2
    I prefer Transitional over Strict because Transitional supports target=_blank for my link. That is the only reason so far.
     
    Mentalhead, Dec 2, 2009 IP
  3. myst_dg

    myst_dg Active Member

    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    9
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    58
    #3
    Strict to build pages from scratch, and optionally switch to transitional in case some attributes such as target=_blank are being used.
     
    myst_dg, Dec 2, 2009 IP
  4. Mentalhead

    Mentalhead Active Member

    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    3
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    53
    #4
    I couldn't agree more :)
     
    Mentalhead, Dec 3, 2009 IP
  5. drhowarddrfine

    drhowarddrfine Peon

    Messages:
    5,428
    Likes Received:
    95
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #5
    Strict. No one ever has any reason to use transitional on new web pages. Using transitional is for transitioning old pages and amateurs who don't know what they're doing.
     
    drhowarddrfine, Dec 3, 2009 IP
  6. n3r0x

    n3r0x Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    120
    #6
    Ok.. I´ll stick with strict then..

    Only thing that bugs me about it is the "target", I know this can be solved by using javascript, but to be honest I think it´s a bit retarded having to use javascript for every single little thing since alot of people have it turned off.
     
    n3r0x, Dec 3, 2009 IP
  7. tobto

    tobto Peon

    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #7
    Strict is good as there are millions of different browsers. With Strict your sites will be more resprected by search robots too.
     
    tobto, Dec 4, 2009 IP
  8. Stomme poes

    Stomme poes Peon

    Messages:
    3,195
    Likes Received:
    136
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #8
    Target was deprecated for a reason. It's existence is for framed sites. You're not building those are you? Target causes cancer and diabetes in old people and spreads AIDS across the globe. If you insist on forcing MY (not yours, mine) browser to open a new window, you'd better have a dayum-good reason.

    Like, if the new window doesn't open over my current browser, completely covering my old browser and making me think I've clicked a normal link but the Back button mysteriously doesn't work, then black-footed ninjas will sneak into my bedroom in the night-time and slice my throat open with rusty WWII spaghetti cans lids. I'll allow target=blank in that instance. My neck is rather precious to me.

    Re the topic, the only reason to use XHTML transitional is because you're Joe and making your first Turdpress site where it starts you out with that smelly doctype. Plus it lets you use cool tags like font and center. And makes a complete mockery of XHTML1.0. Lawlz.
     
    Stomme poes, Dec 4, 2009 IP
  9. n3r0x

    n3r0x Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    120
    #9
    I can give you a damn good reason.. The person who paid me wanted the links opening in a new window...
    You got a good reason why to tell them NO?
     
    n3r0x, Dec 4, 2009 IP
  10. drhowarddrfine

    drhowarddrfine Peon

    Messages:
    5,428
    Likes Received:
    95
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #10
    Do you know anyone who has it turned off? A recent survey showed 95-98% of everyone has it turned on. That's about how many people have Flash turned on and how many sites are entirely Flash built?

    The web was always intended to be scriptable and it will become more and more so as the web moves forward.
     
    drhowarddrfine, Dec 4, 2009 IP
  11. Stomme poes

    Stomme poes Peon

    Messages:
    3,195
    Likes Received:
    136
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #11
    Uh, I have JS turned off. N3r0x has a valid complaint, though no I wouldn't say there are TONS of people with JS off, but sites who can't work without JS are BROKEN. Or a web app, which is not a web SITE.

    Pshh. You know my feelings about scripting documents.

    Usually I just print up those usability studies from the Neilsen group and ask them how many clients they want to piss off and lose (your client's clients that is). Or just bombard the poor guy with a pile o' links. Though I don't necessarily agree that users haven't figured out that new windows are popping up, and that sometimes a visitor wants to have a new (tab, browser) open because they want two things open at the same time... however those are choices and should not be foisted on the visitor.

    Everyone's got a line where they won't cross for a client. I won't let my clients insist on certain things:
    the web site can't be one big image
    it can't be built entirely (or even mostly) in Flash
    it cannot be built only for IE (unless an intranet which I haven't done)
    it needs text alternatives for images
    it needs to be completely and entirely usable whether you're using JAWS or Lynx or don't/can't have a mouse or whatever
    No javajunked menus, forms, or anything else. It can enhance them, but it may NOT build them.
    No Marquee tags
    no Font tags
    none of that removing of scroll bars stuff
    no MySpace glittery backgrounds to make the text unreadable
    no animated gifs that take a day and a half to load
    no microscopic text. 9px is not allowed

    I realise clients don't want things because they hate cripples and laptop users and mobile users and people with vision issues and all that... so I consider it my job to explain to them the hows and whys. That's why they hired me. That's why I'm not their 12-year-old niece making websites in DreamBeaver (because, trust me, she can and she'll do it for a couple of bucks!).

    That aside, sometimes a client asks for something and has a damned good reason*
    OR they say "But seriously this is my online collection of cat photos I've been taking for the last 30 years and fuck blind people, why are they even coming to my site??" or something, and you say, hm, maybe he's right and it doesn't matter.

    Remember, if you enable your client to do wicked things, then wicked things are going to happen to users. If I'm the visitor, I should decide if another whole instance of my bloated steaming pile of Firefux opens for a second time, not Joe's Supermarket Warehouse of Chainsaw Goodies.

    *The last time I used target=blank, I thought I had a damned good reason: we had forms with helpful help text, a few of which were actual links to pages explaining stuff like why they needed to fill that part in or why the law changed or how to tell what kind of X they had (insurance site)...
    and anyone clicking on one of those links who had browser caching turned off would go back and find the form blank.

    Now I was really tempted to say "those morons turned their caching off so they deserve to fill in 30 questions all over again" but that's wrong of me, users are morons and that's simply the way it is, just like we have to accept there are people using IE6 even of their OWN FREE WILL for Chrissakes! and we need to deal with that.

    So we dropped down to the more honest Tranny-fanny doctype and had target=blank (because the JS solution leaves out those who have caching AND scripts off, so doesn't save us anyway).

    But here's the thing: we made the original mistake and then tried to cover it up with some old frameset HTML3.2 crap.

    Help text in a form is ok, but why were we explaining major shit inside a form?? If it's that important it needs to be explained BEFORE they fill it in, not WHILE.
    Why did we even have links to something else in a form anyway?

    Finally, the back-end PHPtards should have had server-side session-caching FOR the client (which we now have, but the online code is still polluted with redundant target=blanks). Once you decide you're gonna make Joe fill in 50 freaking quesitons about his personal life, underwear size and this thing he wants to insure, you should pick up the slack and make sure your server pretends HTTP isn't stateless and do his caching FOR him.

    Oh no wait, here's the finally: another person here at my work (let's call him the graphic designer since he practically is) made a Flashtastic banner which used Adobe's silly suggestion to have target=blank.
    Happily, I showed him how most of my browsers made sure clicking on that banner resulted in the Yellow Bar of StopSpamz (despite not having any special add-ons or extra popup blockers or anything installed on them). He changed it to a regular link.

    I guess you have to decide what you find is acceptable for the client to do to his visitors. For me as a visitor, don't fux0r wit mah br0wz0r. Luckily I have a browser that won't let nasty sites force a new window... and yes I do often open links on page 1 in a new tab (just cause that's easier than window for bloat like FF) instead of clicking straight through to have both open, but I believe it should be my choice, and not your client's.

    BTW if you didn't see this yet you should, it's brilliant: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/design_hell
     
    Stomme poes, Dec 4, 2009 IP
  12. webmaster8757

    webmaster8757 Member

    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    #12
    i will go for strict.because the disadvantage of a Transitional is that the transitional validation scheme allows presence of elements responsible for representative and visual display in markup.
     
    webmaster8757, Dec 4, 2009 IP
  13. drhowarddrfine

    drhowarddrfine Peon

    Messages:
    5,428
    Likes Received:
    95
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #13
    What did he say? That makes no sense. Plus, NO doctype allows or disallows anything in regard to visual display.
     
    drhowarddrfine, Dec 4, 2009 IP
  14. Stomme poes

    Stomme poes Peon

    Messages:
    3,195
    Likes Received:
    136
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #14
    Correct. Tranny doctypes let you use crap like font and center tags, and attributes like align, which are responsible for the visual display.
     
    Stomme poes, Dec 6, 2009 IP
  15. drhowarddrfine

    drhowarddrfine Peon

    Messages:
    5,428
    Likes Received:
    95
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #15
    Wrong. No doctype prevents you from using them. It's only the validator that will flag them based on the doctype.
     
    drhowarddrfine, Dec 6, 2009 IP
  16. Stomme poes

    Stomme poes Peon

    Messages:
    3,195
    Likes Received:
    136
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #16
    Same difference, at least for me. I only even have a doctype for 2 reasons: to keep retarded browsers from acting retarded, and to tell the validator which rules I'm playing by.
    Nasty tags are only deprecated in Strict doctypes. Conversely, that must mean they are NOT deprecated in tranny doctypes. Therefore, trannies let you use nasty tags.

    Certainly I'm not saying black-footed ninjas will come into your room and kill you on the spot for using nasty tags, but I don't need that as a criteria for whether one "can" use nasty tags. I go by the validator, who goes by your chosen doctype.
     
    Stomme poes, Dec 6, 2009 IP