non-valid XHTML DTD

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Rafal 'Raf256' Maj, Sep 3, 2004.

  1. Hi,
    I'm rewritting some older pages. New pages I write in HTML, so I declare:

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"

    What should I put at begin of old pages to indicate that they are
    (probably) partialy HTML compatible?

    What type of W3C DTD is most "easy" or "bad html style" tollerable?

    Old code looks like for example:

    <b><font color="#3333FF"><font size=+1>aaa</font></font></b>
    <br> aaaa
    <a href="xxxx"><img SRC="right_blue.gif" BORDER=0 height=15 width=15></a>

    So I think it is valid HTML... 4.0 ?
    Rafal 'Raf256' Maj, Sep 3, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rafal 'Raf256' Maj

    Neal Guest

    I'd use the Strict doctype for all new pages. Use this transitional
    doctype when, well, transitioning a document from presentational HTML to
    It's awful, but will validate under Transitional.
    Neal, Sep 3, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rafal 'Raf256' Maj, Sep 3, 2004
  4. There's no doubt on the "awful" part (what is a no-break space as a block
    quotation?), but it won't even validate. The attribute value "+1" must be
    quoted in all versions of HTML, and since HTML 4.0, the ALT attribute is
    syntactically obligatory in an <img> element.

    And, of course, it will fail validation under any XHTML DTD (see the
    Subject line) due to the lack of the fancy "/", too.
    Jukka K. Korpela, Sep 3, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.