Post Archive
› March 12, 2003
A Question About XHTML
In an upcoming redesign should I use XHTML Transitional or Strict? Has anyone experienced issues with users having problems with pages built within the Strict DTD?
The site is catering to a large audience of both new and experienced Web users and has a large consumer sales focus. About 95% of the site will be generated by PHP/MySQL and might even use a template engine such as Smarty. So, my key concern is real-world usability unless there are other issues unknown to me.
Comments
1. March 12, 2003 10:07 PM
2. March 13, 2003 04:17 AM
Quote this comment
pixy Posted…
Using the Strict DTD's (no matter if HTML4 or XHTML, the diffrence is just very subtle) requires more knowledge and better experience on the authors' side... The biggest benefit of Strict documents is that their rendering is predictable - while rendering of Transitional (or not-valid) documents is just a lottery. There is no place, no specification, no "white-book" telling what a browser should do width these "transitional" pages (in oposite to the strict ones). You may expect some specific behavior within a specific kind (type, version, platform) of browser - but, you'll be never sure how all the other devices will behave... That's the plussest plus of Strict DTD. The "minus" is you have to well form, structure and (if you don't want to show a "pure HTML" only) know the CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) as well. I prefer Strict XHTML - in fact, I haven't made even one transitional or non-valid page for at least one year. And, I'm affraid I don't know how to do it anymore... However, if the author is an expert of "tabular layout" and isn't familiar with CSS, he'd better to keep his transitional documents. The result (well designed transitional doc with table-layout) will be more accessible and more useful, than wrong designed Strict document with wrong and incompatible CSS (and, he/she can learn XHTML+CSS meanwhile). Otherwise, if anyone thinks he/she knows both XHTML and CSS, he/she should prefer this.3. March 13, 2003 04:27 AM
Quote this comment
Jay Allen Posted…
"The biggest benefit of Strict documents is that their rendering is predictable - while rendering of Transitional (or not-valid) documents is just a lottery." I'm not so sure about THAT! In the last twenty-four hours (all of which I have been awake, plus the previous 36, might I add), I posted this and then this popped up over at Perversion Tracker. XHTML Strict and WinIE6 are not getting along well and I don't yet know why...4. March 13, 2003 04:40 AM
Quote this comment
Kevin Posted…
Alex - go for it. I was in the same position a few months ago. So one xhtml strict, mySql, Smarty and php site later - http://www.pontypriddrfc.co.uk5. March 13, 2003 06:02 AM
Quote this comment
pixy Posted…
Jay, of course, I'm talking about Browsers, honoring the standards - unlike browser-like toys like MSIE. ;-) I said the behavior IS predictable. Just one look to the code of your site and I understand. The problem is that MSIE 6 switches to the "quirk mode" when the document (even the strict XHTML) contains the XML declaration. Try to remove first line in the code and watch what MSIE6 shows you now...6. March 13, 2003 07:06 AM
Quote this comment
Rich Posted…
Like Alex, I'm in the process of building a site which is served through a bespoke PHP/MySQL CMS (content management system). I will be using XHTML Strict for the prime reason that it forces the markup to be clean, simple and meaningful (or semantic as many folks are apt to say). This is particularly pertinent if the content stored by the CMS contains mark-up. BTW You may like to employ Dean Allen's textile which may prove a great way of writing content more quickly and keeping mark-up out of your CMS. Textile does many great things, typical examples of which are converting line breaks into paragraphs and check marks " into curly quotes ’. Lovely.7. March 13, 2003 07:08 AM
8. March 13, 2003 09:38 AM
Quote this comment
Alex Jones Posted…
Howdy all, I appreciate the feedback so far, please keep it coming. A quick bit of background, my XHTML and CSS skills are quite solid as I've been developing sans table for a couple of years now - yay early adoption and its inherent frustrations. While I have a team-member to bring up to speed on proper coding (just got her off of Front Page), I plan on utilizing templates via PHP, so I am pretty confident that we can keep the markup consistent and to spec. I ask this question as I am concerned that some browser/platform combinations will have issues displaying pages written to the XHTML Strict spec. Though I can run tests with myriad browsers, I won't get the perspective that comes with first-hand experience of developing an XHTML strict site and dealing with the ramifications. As much as I would like to design towards standard-supporting browsers, it isn't realistic. I have to support IE. I will be designing for Windows and the Mac. I hope to shift away from explicit support of 4.x browsers, though I want to ensure the site is usable at a base level for them as well as accessible for text-browsers. Again, thank you all for your input so far, I am getting a better perspective of some of the issues.9. March 13, 2003 09:42 AM
Quote this comment
Evan Posted…
I hope that when you're referring to putting markup in your CMS it's nothing more than href or b tags. Niether structural nor semantic(?) markup belongs in your CMS. Also, by using SmartyPants or even htmlspecialchars() will keep your Content clean and will make exporting your content to other formats, RSS in particular, super easy. Congrats to all of you for bucking the trend and building your own systems.10. March 13, 2003 10:07 AM
Quote this comment
Jay Posted…
Rich, I wasn't referrring to my own site, but my client's site. My client's site validates to XHTML-Strict and the CSS validates as CSS 2. I would be surprised if my own little playground validated to Wilbur...11. March 18, 2003 10:21 AM
Quote this comment
Dave S. Posted…
From the horse's mouth: "XHTML documents can be written to operate as well or better than they did before in existing HTML 4-conforming user agents as well as in new, XHTML 1.0 conforming user agents." Aside from non-displaying data about the document itself, the XHTML 1 spec doesn't actually add anything new to HTML 4.01 - instead it enforces structure and syntax, and essentially removes a lot of extraneous things that can be accomplished through CSS today. That being said, XHTML Strict takes away some older rendering features (td align="center" is a good example) in HTML 4.01 that older browsers like Netscape 4.x need for display. If you're willing to serve up non-formatted pages to that small percentage of your audience that still refuses to get with it (2% these days?) then drop tables, go DIVs, and don't look back. XHTML Strict should be a snap. If you still need to cater to the absolute lowest common denominator, then consider taking a step down and using Transitional.