What doctype should I use ?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by graphicsxp, May 11, 2010.

  1. graphicsxp

    graphicsxp Guest

    Hi,

    I've been using the following doctype for my website:

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://
    www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

    When I use the W3 validator I get 17 errors, but the good news is that
    they are all easy to fix.

    However with their tool, I have the option to select xhtml1-strict.dtd
    and this time I get 28 errors. Some of them are not so easy to fix.

    My question is, what doctype should I use anyway ? Ive been using
    transitional.dtd only because my IDE (Visual Studio) added this one
    for me and I never really thought about it until I decided to validate
    my pages.

    Thanks
    graphicsxp, May 11, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Gazing into my crystal ball I observed graphicsxp
    <> writing in news:314b24e2-2902-411f-b20d-
    :

    > Hi,
    >
    > I've been using the following doctype for my website:
    >
    ><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://
    > www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
    >
    > When I use the W3 validator I get 17 errors, but the good news is that
    > they are all easy to fix.
    >
    > However with their tool, I have the option to select xhtml1-strict.dtd
    > and this time I get 28 errors. Some of them are not so easy to fix.
    >
    > My question is, what doctype should I use anyway ? Ive been using
    > transitional.dtd only because my IDE (Visual Studio) added this one
    > for me and I never really thought about it until I decided to validate
    > my pages.
    >
    > Thanks
    >


    You should be using HTML Strict.

    --
    Adrienne Boswell at Home
    Arbpen Web Site Design Services
    http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
    Please respond to the group so others can share
    Adrienne Boswell, May 11, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. graphicsxp

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On May 11, 10:11 am, Adrienne Boswell <> wrote:
    > Gazing into my crystal ball I observed graphicsxp
    > <> writing in news:314b24e2-2902-411f-b20d-
    > :
    >
    >
    >
    > > Hi,

    >
    > > I've been using the following doctype for my website:

    >
    > ><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://
    > >www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

    >
    > > When I use the W3 validator I get 17 errors, but the good news is that
    > > they are all easy to fix.

    >
    > > However with their tool, I have the option to select xhtml1-strict.dtd
    > > and this time I get 28 errors. Some of them are not so easy to fix.

    >
    > > My question is, what doctype should I use anyway ? Ive been using
    > > transitional.dtd only because my IDE (Visual Studio) added this one
    > > for me and I never really thought about it until I decided to validate
    > > my pages.

    >
    > > Thanks

    >
    > You should be using HTML Strict.  


    I agree. And notice this is html 4.1 strict and not xhtml 1 strict.
    Any kind of xhtml will be served only as ordinary html unless you
    configure your server to serve true xhtml. This might involve
    associating the mime type for xhtml with an extension such as .xhtml
    since .html usually is used for ordinary html. When you serve xhtml
    properly, you will find IE browsers can not handle it. Thus you must
    do some elaborate jumps through hoops to get IE to view the xhtml
    page. One way is to use header exchange to see if the browser will
    accept xhtml. If not, the page is rewritten as html 4 strict using
    regular expressions etc. Unless you are on a private network that does
    not use IE browsers, using true xhtml served properly is a lot of
    work. The main problems are setting up the server and writing the
    mentioned header code. Once that is done, serving true xhtml is not
    very difficult. Also note that when served properly, an xml parser is
    used that tolerates nearly no errors. A single error such as not
    closing something often will give an error message from the xml parser
    rather than a view, perhaps somewhat distorted, of the page.
    cwdjrxyz, May 11, 2010
    #3
  4. Adrienne Boswell wrote:

    >> My question is, what doctype should I use anyway ? Ive been using
    >> transitional.dtd only because my IDE (Visual Studio) added this one
    >> for me and I never really thought about it until I decided to
    >> validate my pages.

    [...]
    > You should be using HTML Strict.


    I can't agree without knowing the intrinsics of the tool used. It depends on
    what kind of markup it generates and whether it lets the author to select
    doctype (instead of forcing him to change it manually using another
    program).

    Then again, we might ask why someone using a bulky and costly program for
    web page creation should additionally need to use a simple free checker to
    verify that the generated code is valid...

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, May 11, 2010
    #4
  5. graphicsxp

    graphicsxp Guest

    Thanks for the answers.

    My pages are now valide using xhtml1-transitional. But according to
    you, I should validate it with strict mode. I'll work on it, but I
    doubt it's possible.

    Jukka, the reason I use a free tool, is simply because at design time
    my aspx pages are not rendered as html yet. So it needs to be done at
    runtime, which to my knowledge VS doesn't do. Besides it's not costly
    depending on which version you use. Just saying:)
    graphicsxp, May 12, 2010
    #5
  6. On 2010-05-12 11:58:38 +0200, graphicsxp <> said:

    > Thanks for the answers.
    >
    > My pages are now valide using xhtml1-transitional. But according to
    > you, I should validate it with strict mode. I'll work on it, but I
    > doubt it's possible.
    >
    > Jukka, the reason I use a free tool, is simply because at design time
    > my aspx pages are not rendered as html yet. So it needs to be done at
    > runtime, which to my knowledge VS doesn't do. Besides it's not costly
    > depending on which version you use. Just saying:)


    The cheapest version listed at
    http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-us/products is offered at 799
    USD. That seems pretty costly to me, but maybe you've more money than
    you need.

    However, I doubt if Jukka was wondering why you used a free product to
    validate your HTML. Probably he was wondering why anyone would use an
    expensive tool to generate HTML that couldn't be assumed to be
    error-free. I haven't used any of these tools since about 1997, but
    what I read about them suggests that they still cannot be trusted. In
    view of the name of the company that produces Virtual Studio I'd be
    very surprised if it is the exception.

    --
    athel
    Athel Cornish-Bowden, May 12, 2010
    #6
  7. On 2010-05-12 20:39:56 +0200, Sherm Pendley <> said:

    > Athel Cornish-Bowden <> writes:
    >
    >> On 2010-05-12 11:58:38 +0200, graphicsxp <> said:
    >>
    >>> Jukka, the reason I use a free tool, is simply because at design time
    >>> my aspx pages are not rendered as html yet. So it needs to be done at
    >>> runtime, which to my knowledge VS doesn't do. Besides it's not costly
    >>> depending on which version you use. Just saying:)

    >>
    >> The cheapest version listed at
    >> http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-us/products is offered at 799
    >> USD. That seems pretty costly to me, but maybe you've more money than
    >> you need.

    >
    > It's not costly *depending on which version you use*. Since 2005 (IIRC)
    > there has been an "Express" that's a free download:
    >
    > <http://www.microsoft.com/express/Web/>


    I thought that might be the case, but ...
    >
    > I *still* don't think it's worth the price though. ;-)


    .... more important, I agree with you. They'd need to pay me (at least
    799 USD per page) to use it.


    --
    athel
    Athel Cornish-Bowden, May 12, 2010
    #7
  8. graphicsxp

    graphicsxp Guest

    well obviously you're not going to use Visual Studio if you only do
    web page design.... It's all relative...
    I do .net programming, including wpf applications, web services and
    asp.net websites. So I really don't see what other tool I could
    use :)
    let's be objective a little bit, VS is definitely a great IDE when
    you're into programming (not for graphics design)

    thanks for all the replies.
    graphicsxp, May 12, 2010
    #8
  9. graphicsxp

    Jenn Guest

    graphicsxp wrote:
    > well obviously you're not going to use Visual Studio if you only do
    > web page design.... It's all relative...
    > I do .net programming, including wpf applications, web services and
    > asp.net websites. So I really don't see what other tool I could
    > use :)
    > let's be objective a little bit, VS is definitely a great IDE when
    > you're into programming (not for graphics design)
    >
    > thanks for all the replies.


    I like Photoshop for graphics design.. and Bryce 3d just for fun.

    --
    Jenn (from Oklahoma)
    http://pqlr.org/bbs/
    Jenn, May 12, 2010
    #9
  10. Jenn wrote:

    > I like Photoshop for graphics design.. and Bryce 3d just for fun.


    Photoshop is fine for "make pretty." Expensive. The GIMP is free.

    But you still don't know what a DOCTYPE is.

    --
    -bts
    -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, May 12, 2010
    #10
  11. graphicsxp

    Jenn Guest

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    > Jenn wrote:
    >
    >> I like Photoshop for graphics design.. and Bryce 3d just for fun.

    >
    > Photoshop is fine for "make pretty." Expensive. The GIMP is free.
    >


    Adobe photoshop is an industry standard program, along with Flash, and
    similar other programs.
    --
    Jenn (from Oklahoma)
    http://pqlr.org/bbs/
    Jenn, May 12, 2010
    #11
  12. graphicsxp

    freemont Guest

    On Wed, 12 May 2010 17:02:24 -0500, Jenn writ:

    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >> Jenn wrote:
    >>
    >>> I like Photoshop for graphics design.. and Bryce 3d just for fun.

    >>
    >> Photoshop is fine for "make pretty." Expensive. The GIMP is free.
    >>
    >>

    > Adobe photoshop is an industry standard program, along with Flash, and
    > similar other programs.


    Photoshop explained by a mental gimp.

    Only in alt.html. :)
    --
    â‚ "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
    ¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> ※freemont※ <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
    freemont, May 12, 2010
    #12
  13. Jenn wrote:

    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >> Jenn wrote:
    >>> I like Photoshop for graphics design.. and Bryce 3d just for fun.

    >>
    >> Photoshop is fine for "make pretty." Expensive. The GIMP is free.

    >
    > Adobe photoshop is an industry standard program, along with Flash,
    > and similar other programs.


    ... like The GIMP.

    <snipproof>
    But you still don't know what a DOCTYPE is.
    </snipproof>

    --
    -bts
    -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, May 13, 2010
    #13
  14. graphicsxp

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    "asdf" <> wrote:

    > "Jenn" <> wrote in message
    > news:hsf8hh$cdh$-september.org...
    > > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    > >> Jenn wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> I like Photoshop for graphics design.. and Bryce 3d just for fun.
    > >>
    > >> Photoshop is fine for "make pretty." Expensive. The GIMP is free.
    > >>

    > >
    > > Adobe photoshop is an industry standard program, along with Flash, and
    > > similar other programs.

    >
    > Rubbish.
    >
    > ... any product from a
    > propietary software house could not possibly be described as "standard".


    Why not? It is a perfectly understandable and true statement that
    "Adobe photoshop is an industry standard program" the truth maker
    being that photo manipulation programs are almost universally
    compared to Photoshop and rightly so.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, May 13, 2010
    #14
  15. graphicsxp

    dorayme Guest

    In article <hsfdvf$qvh$-september.org>,
    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:

    > Jenn wrote:
    >
    > > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    > >> Jenn wrote:
    > >>> I like Photoshop for graphics design.. and Bryce 3d just for fun.
    > >>
    > >> Photoshop is fine for "make pretty." Expensive. The GIMP is free.

    > >
    > > Adobe photoshop is an industry standard program, along with Flash,
    > > and similar other programs.

    >
    > .. like The GIMP.
    >
    > <snipproof>
    > But you still don't know what a DOCTYPE is.
    > </snipproof>


    And you, for no discernible useful reason, continue to hassle
    this lady with schoolyard bully taunts.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, May 13, 2010
    #15
  16. dorayme wrote:

    > And you, for no discernible useful reason, continue to hassle
    > this lady with schoolyard bully taunts.


    Kissy, kissy...

    As long as she keeps posting misinformation, someone has to...

    --
    -bts
    -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, May 13, 2010
    #16
  17. graphicsxp

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 13 May, 08:52, "asdf" <> wrote:
    > "Jenn" <> wrote in message


    > > Adobe photoshop is an industry standard program, along with Flash, and
    > > similar other programs.


    > The file formats *might* be "industry standard" but any product from a
    > propietary software house could not possibly be described as "standard".


    Oh, it could be (and for Photoshop, I'd agree that it is).

    I take your position. It's the _file_formats_ that need to be the
    standard. However that's not where we are at present. Photoshop is
    "the industry standard" of programs in use for this task, of user
    interfaces for people who do this work, and as a buzzword on the CV of
    people hoping to get jobs working in this field. That's not how it
    ought to be, but it's where we and the industry are today.

    Besides which, GIMP is a user-hostile bag of nails. I'd pay money to
    avoid using that.
    Andy Dingley, May 13, 2010
    #17
  18. graphicsxp

    dorayme Guest

    In article <hsglaq$7dk$-september.org>,
    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    >
    > > And you, for no discernible useful reason, continue to hassle
    > > this lady with schoolyard bully taunts.

    >
    > Kissy, kissy...
    >
    > As long as she keeps posting misinformation, someone has to...


    Has to what? Act like you? Not so. See Adrienne's posts if you
    need guidance on how not to be a jerk but still reject
    assertions. Obviously, the huge gap between kissy kissy and Abu
    Ghraib escapes the mean spirited early man brain. You
    Neanderthalic schmuck.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, May 13, 2010
    #18
  19. graphicsxp

    rf Guest

    dorayme wrote:
    > In article <hsfdvf$qvh$-september.org>,
    > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Jenn wrote:
    >>
    >>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >>>> Jenn wrote:
    >>>>> I like Photoshop for graphics design.. and Bryce 3d just for fun.
    >>>>
    >>>> Photoshop is fine for "make pretty." Expensive. The GIMP is free.
    >>>
    >>> Adobe photoshop is an industry standard program, along with Flash,
    >>> and similar other programs.

    >>
    >> .. like The GIMP.
    >>
    >> <snipproof>
    >> But you still don't know what a DOCTYPE is.
    >> </snipproof>

    >
    > And you, for no discernible useful reason, continue to hassle
    > this lady with schoolyard bully taunts.


    dorayme, this "lady" is an non-educatable bloody moron stuck in the last
    millennium where her brain last stalled.

    You seem to have been sucked in by her in a big way. More the pity, I
    thought you had more discerning tastes.

    Look at all the threads this "lady" has participated in. Somebody says
    something. Jenn says something. A pissing match ensues and it's always an
    argument between her 1990's style of coding and the 'this century' stuff the
    rest of us use, or her total misunderstanding of the discussion to hand. In
    Every One Of The Threads. Every Time.

    In each thread somebody has had a swipe at her. Except you. And possibly
    also except Adrienne, although I could see her patience dropping to very low
    levels on occasion, but she is too naturally nice to be forcefully nasty.
    Even the very quite regulars have dipped in with their disapproval.

    And just look at the sites she comes forward with in her support. Her sites
    are total trash. I for one would NEVER offer something like that up to a
    customer and expect them to pay me for it. The other external sites the
    quotes form time to time have all been at one time or another lambasted here
    and elsewhere as being not bloody good at all. She is stuck in the standard
    lemming syndrome

    The girl is a bloody loser. I really believe she may be the long lost sister
    of Richard the Stupid, she certainly posts the same lame way he does.

    Killfile the idiot. Move on in life and let's resume our regular playful
    attacks on each other.
    rf, May 13, 2010
    #19
  20. graphicsxp

    Doug Miller Guest

    In article <7SSGn.24541$>, "rf" <> wrote:
    [...]
    >The girl is a bloody loser. I really believe she may be the long lost sister
    >of Richard the Stupid, she certainly posts the same lame way he does.


    That's completely uncalled for IMHO. Yes, her notions of what constitutes
    appropriate HTML coding may be from the 1990s, but she knows what she is
    doing, and is able to articulate reasons for doing what she does -- neither of
    which is true of RtS, who simply fumbles blindly without the merest vestige of
    a clue as to what he's doing or why.

    Nor does Jenn post with the same arrogantly ignorant belligerence that
    characterizes many of RtS's posts.

    I believe she is educable; RtS has clearly demonstrated that he is not.
    Doug Miller, May 13, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jim Scott

    Which doctype do I use?

    Jim Scott, Sep 9, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,656
    Alan J. Flavell
    Sep 10, 2005
  2. cwdjrxyz
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    693
    dorayme
    Jan 28, 2011
  3. ruud grosmann
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    304
    ruud grosmann
    Aug 2, 2008
  4. bbxrider

    which doctype to use?? and one other

    bbxrider, Aug 9, 2003, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    105
    bbxrider
    Aug 9, 2003
  5. Larry Lindstrom
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    1,260
    Jonathan N. Little
    Jun 12, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page