This page has some problems, the template is all broken up..(i tried it in firefox, chrome and ie) there are no background images in the template. i think its better to follow div layouts... all d best! If u r good in html, and css try strict or Transitional doctype Loose will afford minor errors, perfect choice for newbies...
that depends on what machines you are targeting. if you are targeting mobile devices you have to do strict I think. otherwise transitional is fine.
Reading material: http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/14-choosing-the-right-doctype-for-your/ The validator is dropping back to HTML 4.01 Traditional. Unless you have a reason not to, I'd just stick with that. You have some coding problems though.
by the way, you know your navigation changes from the home page to the other pages, which is really bad UX
Always use a strict Doctype (to avoid deprecated elements and attributes) -- presently use HTML 4.01. Refer to this page for information relating to why not to use XHTML 1.0. Visit this page for a really in-depth examination of Doctype selection. James
Amen to Strict. Who said the validator was dropping to Transitional?? The validator willl validate any doctype (except it has trouble with html5). HTML4.01 Strict for 99% of sites is fine. However, write it as if it were XHTML. Don't skimp.
And if you had actually followed the link that I give, you would have understood why the validator was dropping down to Transitional as it told you why it was doing so. *sigh* Yup, it's DP.
I was under the impression that you were saying the validator itself or those who developed it were recommending people use Transitional which is not true. If you meant that his doctypeless site was "dropping down" (down from what? nothing?) to HTML4 Transitional, then you're still confusing me, because for me the direction is not "down". Then again Engrish is a funny language where people can go either "up" or "down" a street while remaining completely horizontal :/ *sigh* DP people and their Engrish.
I suggest you to use this script <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
Yes, Sp is correct. The point is that XHTML served as content type text/html (which is the way 99% of XHTML pages are actually being served) is really just HTML anyway (they must be served as content type application/XHTML+XML to be real XHTML pages) so why do all the extra typing involved in using XHTML Doctypes/headers, closing empty elements, etc.? The HTML 4.01 Strict Doctype is simple: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> Of course, the well-formedness principles inherent in XHTML (using lowercase for elements/attributes, nesting elements correctly, quoting attribute values, structuring documents through proper use of headings ..... and so on) are essential -- but they should be always employed anyway regardless of the document designation. James