difference between valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional and strict

Hi ppl

Whats the major differences between valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional and Strict?

Whats more valuable these days, code in Strict 1.0 or Transitional 1.0?

Thanks
scuba

 

This might be what you are looking for (?):

http://www.zvon.org/xxl/xhtmlReference/Output/comparison.html

 

yep, thanks a handfull of rules; So Strict is going bye bye...

If one code just in Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional, will be more apreciated by major league web firms? Or are we in a midle turn where one can code in sctrict or transitional and no one give a $$#"?

 

I wouldn't hire anyone who couldn't code strict (it's only a few things really that they let you get away with in Transitional like target which one shouldn't be using anyway) but "major web firms" seem to pump out crap a lot worse than Transitional so I'd say, they'll hire without Strict.

What sorts of problems did you run into when seeing if you could right strict?

 

New pages should not be written in transitional, but if you are writing a CMS or other system where a coder won't necessarily be handling the page content, then you should DEPLOY in transitional.

Strict pretty much removes a bunch of attributes that honestly, were either a bad idea in the first place, or have no purpose aside from bloat now that CSS is deployable... if you cannot code the page in Strict, it probably means you are doing something wrong - As stomme mentioned "Target" goes at the top of that list, but it's followed close by all those presentational attributes. A modern page should separate presentation from content - meaning content in your HTML and presentation in your CSS. If you 'need' the background attribute on BODY, you are probably doing something wrong... if you 'need' to inline a 'clear' in your HTML, you are probably doing something wrong. If you 'need' the FONT tag, you are DEFINATELY doing something wrong.

 

jesus, i thought i was doing the right thing developing in transitional and validating it...

well, back to the board...

 

I'm not sure He is reading this thread. He is probably really busy at the moment with matters not quite as trivial as strict vs. transitional HTML. But . . . I guess that some people here might consider this of the utmost level of importance.

 

Let me ask you what is so bad about the "target" attribute? Because honestly, and I am ashamed of this, but I don't know why it is so bad and why it is deprecated in XHTML 1.0 Strict.

Is there another way of achieving the functionality of the "target" attribute, w/ out JS?

-CSSDevMonkey

 

Nope, Monkey. Target's biggest problem is accessibility. The Gospel on this one being preached is that the user will decide if they want to open a new window or simply in another tab. That way, the user chooses whether to stay on the page.

There is one instance where I think target forcing a new window might be used, and I'm trying to work around it now because no way am I dropping down to Transisional just to use Target-- and that's where someone's filling out a form, and then you've got some additional info regarding a label, and it's both in a link AND a .pdf... and you'd like them to be able to take a quick read without losing everything they've already filled in. Now, the BETTER solution is to use your CMS to hold that info for them if they click with the browser default "open on this page" and then hit the BACK button to finish the form, it's still filled in. If that could not be done for some reason, then Target does kinda the same thing by forcing either a new window or a new tab.

Otherwise, people either expect a link to take them to a new page (and they'll hit the BACK button to go back to yours later), or they want to choose themselves. Ads that pop up in new windows are the worst, as then you may end up with tons of seperate windows open on your desktop that you didn't even ask for and now have to close every single one.

Surprise! New Window! also sucks for browsing with screen readers. They need all the control of their browsers they can get.

You can keep your page in Transistional if you want, it's not a crime or anything. Validating it is important and you are doing the right thing by checking against a standard. The only thing is, it's a loose standard. It does let a lot of bs through. But heck, if you wanted to, you could write a whole page that WOULD validate strict and keep the Transistional doctype. It's really only a few things that Transisional lets through and they are all easily subsituted or accounted for. (Hmm... except maybe for all the widgets in those bloggitty-blog-blog-dogs... they often have their own code which you cannot change and THAT may force someone to use Transistional...)


Heh, Foo... yeah, I don't think the deities are worried which version we write our pages in. I try not to be too anal about it.