Web Design Forums

msunely · 23-10-2007, 00:23

When authoring document is HTML or XHTML, it is important to Add a Doctype declaration. The declaration must be exact (both in spelling and in case) to have the desired effect, which makes it sometimes difficult. To ease the work, i have listed DTD list in blogspot.

Well I am new so I can post the URL so if any one needed the list message me here i will reply him

thanks
Mohammed Sunely

Bill Posters · 23-10-2007, 02:16

(If you're genuinely aiming to help people rather than looking for a way to attract visitors to your site you could simply post them here. Or you could post a link to any of the other online resources which list complete and correct doctypes.)

Fwiw…

No-one I know of actually types the DTDs out themselves and, imo, only the most masochistic developer would bother. Instead, they use the built-in facilities of their chosen text/code editor to automatically insert them or simply copy/paste them from earlier documents.

Do you hand code your Doc-Type?

I'm of the opinion that the only two current doctypes worth knowing and using are the HTML 4.01 Strict and XHTML 1.0 Strict doctypes.

i.e.

HTML 4.01 Strict

Code:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
	"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

XHTML 1.0 Strict

Code:

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

Strict doctypes provide the most stable, consistent X/HTML development environment as well as encourage a greater level of separation between structure, presentation and behaviour/functionality.

CGzero · 08-07-2008, 15:49

I have to ask, is it better to use XHTML over standard HTML?

fasterthanlight · 08-07-2008, 16:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by CGzero

I have to ask, is it better to use XHTML over standard HTML?

Thats like asking, "is it better to drive a Pinto, or a Ferrari"

XHTML vs HTML

spiral · 09-07-2008, 12:34

Faster, that's not really a valid comparison. There is absolutely nothing wrong with html.

actually last week i read an interesting article on the subject:
Siding with HTML over XHTML, My Decision to Switch - Monday By Noon

Personally, I use html strict in 95% of cases.

fasterthanlight · 09-07-2008, 15:13

There's also nothing wrong with a Pinto

But a ferarri is just so, much, better.

They both get the job done, but one looks better than the other,

and I prefer the stringent rules for writing XHTML because I am a perfectionist.

spiral · 09-07-2008, 15:56

sure thing, but unless you serve it as xml, it has no practical advantage. You can write html just as perfect

fasterthanlight · 09-07-2008, 16:30

Touché, let us hold hands in agreement :P

Shiro · 09-07-2008, 19:18

While I use XHTML myself, and intend to continue to do so, I have been swayed over the last few months into pretty much agreeing with the HTML crowd that there isn't any particular reason to, as pretty much everyone serves XHTML as HTML anyways. And if you are using HTML strict, it's strict, so there is no saying that XHTML strict follows stricter guidlines. It just follows different guidelines.

karmedic · 10-07-2008, 11:49

I Agree with Haku although my default preference is to use strict HTML. For web apps and general site development it serves me well.

gusdsnail · 25-07-2008, 03:29

The difference from my experience is that certain DTDs switches the browser between quirks mode and strict/compliance mode. If you need backwards compatibility you would use an older DTD to force the browser into quirks mode.

If the strict/compliance mode is available in the browser, if you use XHTML strict it forces the browser to comply to standards. If most cases you wont notice it but when you get a 'quirky' problem the DTD can be an issue.

Rexibit · 25-07-2008, 11:32

Maybe, but we all "love" IE.

It does such a good job staying in strict mode.

KrisMarissens · 29-07-2008, 09:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by fasterthanlight

There's also nothing wrong with a Pinto

But a ferarri is just so, much, better.

They both get the job done, but one looks better than the other,

and I prefer the stringent rules for writing XHTML because I am a perfectionist.

[Invalid] Markup Validation of http://www.maybe-tomorrows-ashes.com/ - W3C Markup Validator

Rexibit · 29-07-2008, 09:10

Oooo lol.

Synook · 30-07-2008, 04:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiral

sure thing, but unless you serve it as xml, it has no practical advantage. You can write html just as perfect

You can parse XHTML document using an XML parser though... makes extracting information very easy.

But I suppose I use XHTML just because I like the syntax. Feels more logical than HTML. And it allows me to make less mistakes when writing in other XML languages...

By the way the HTML 4.01 DTD will also cause standards compliance mode.

23-10-2007, 00:23	#1 (permalink)
msunely Registered User Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4	Recommended DTDs to use in your Web document. When authoring document is HTML or XHTML, it is important to Add a Doctype declaration. The declaration must be exact (both in spelling and in case) to have the desired effect, which makes it sometimes difficult. To ease the work, i have listed DTD list in blogspot. Well I am new so I can post the URL so if any one needed the list message me here i will reply him thanks Mohammed Sunely

23-10-2007, 02:16	#2 (permalink)
Bill Posters trouble free and loverlee Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: YooKay Posts: 3,086	(If you're genuinely aiming to help people rather than looking for a way to attract visitors to your site you could simply post them here. Or you could post a link to any of the other online resources which list complete and correct doctypes.) Fwiw… No-one I know of actually types the DTDs out themselves and, imo, only the most masochistic developer would bother. Instead, they use the built-in facilities of their chosen text/code editor to automatically insert them or simply copy/paste them from earlier documents. Do you hand code your Doc-Type? I'm of the opinion that the only two current doctypes worth knowing and using are the HTML 4.01 Strict and XHTML 1.0 Strict doctypes. i.e. HTML 4.01 Strict Code: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> XHTML 1.0 Strict Code: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> Strict doctypes provide the most stable, consistent X/HTML development environment as well as encourage a greater level of separation between structure, presentation and behaviour/functionality.

09-07-2008, 19:18	#9 (permalink)
Shiro Sans Comic Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 7,299	While I use XHTML myself, and intend to continue to do so, I have been swayed over the last few months into pretty much agreeing with the HTML crowd that there isn't any particular reason to, as pretty much everyone serves XHTML as HTML anyways. And if you are using HTML strict, it's strict, so there is no saying that XHTML strict follows stricter guidlines. It just follows different guidelines. __________________ This space for rent. After Hours Japan

25-07-2008, 11:32	#12 (permalink)
Rexibit Web Developer Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: United States Posts: 141	Maybe, but we all "love" IE. It does such a good job staying in strict mode. __________________ Rexibit Web Services Don't just build it - CSS it.

29-07-2008, 09:10	#14 (permalink)
Rexibit Web Developer Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: United States Posts: 141	Oooo lol. __________________ Rexibit Web Services Don't just build it - CSS it.

08-07-2008, 15:49	#3 (permalink)
CGzero Artist Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Washington Posts: 20	I have to ask, is it better to use XHTML over standard HTML?

09-07-2008, 12:34	#5 (permalink)
spiral dt newbie Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 83	Faster, that's not really a valid comparison. There is absolutely nothing wrong with html. actually last week i read an interesting article on the subject: Siding with HTML over XHTML, My Decision to Switch - Monday By Noon Personally, I use html strict in 95% of cases.

09-07-2008, 15:13	#6 (permalink)
fasterthanlight FUNKTION GALLERY Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 2,348	There's also nothing wrong with a Pinto But a ferarri is just so, much, better. They both get the job done, but one looks better than the other, and I prefer the stringent rules for writing XHTML because I am a perfectionist.

09-07-2008, 15:56	#7 (permalink)
spiral dt newbie Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 83	sure thing, but unless you serve it as xml, it has no practical advantage. You can write html just as perfect

09-07-2008, 16:30	#8 (permalink)
fasterthanlight FUNKTION GALLERY Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 2,348	Touché, let us hold hands in agreement :P

10-07-2008, 11:49	#10 (permalink)
karmedic id Join Date: May 2008 Location: Ottawa Posts: 229	I Agree with Haku although my default preference is to use strict HTML. For web apps and general site development it serves me well.

25-07-2008, 03:29	#11 (permalink)
gusdsnail I'm not really a snail Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Sydney Posts: 54	The difference from my experience is that certain DTDs switches the browser between quirks mode and strict/compliance mode. If you need backwards compatibility you would use an older DTD to force the browser into quirks mode. If the strict/compliance mode is available in the browser, if you use XHTML strict it forces the browser to comply to standards. If most cases you wont notice it but when you get a 'quirky' problem the DTD can be an issue.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search