Comments on: XHtml Websites Calm My Fears

By: breichelt

breichelt — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:07:32 +0000

Chris, I agree with you about the distinction between transitional and strict, but one thing that I like about xhtml is that the web page is a well formed document, its not a huge problem for browsers, they do a perfectly good job of rendering malformed html, but I just like knowing that someone took the time to do the job right, ya know

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 16:26:34 +0000

In my opinion, the difference between html and xhtml is completely unimportant. It is the distinction between strict and transitional that really matters. If you’re validating to a strict doctype, no matter whether it is HTML or XHTML, it’s an excellent indication that you’ve seperated content from style, but both of the transitional doctypes, xhtml and html allow all kinds of nasty garbage to sneak into your page *cough* font tag *cough*.

By: jpalermo

jpalermo — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:35:14 +0000

Yep. Using a complete doctype is enough to elevate my opinion of the site. The common website tools default to an incomplete doctype, so when a complete one is used, you know the folks knew what they were doing. Xhtml 1.0 transitional is probably the most realistic doctype we’ll use until the next generation of CSS (3.0) and browsers.