Michael Landis wrote:
> I'm guessing the list admins are doing other things, so I'd imagine
> they haven't had a chance to make this statement, but I'd imagine
> they would look at the purpose of this list[1], compare it to this
> discussion on which doctype to validate against, and deem it
> off-topic.
I don't think any sane and well-informed admin would do that, as several
browsers still have what's called 'almost standards mode' when given a
'transitional' doctype.
One of the (few) css-related differences is the display:[default] for
images, which sometimes comes up as a problem here on css-d. Thus, the
subject definitely has a place here.
Sam Partington wrote:
> I can't move over to strict on many of my pages because I need some
> of those deprecated attributes.
That is definitely *not* a css-related problem :-)
Browsers lack of support for "something" may be seen as a "somewhat"
valid reason for choosing a 'non-Strict' doctype, as some of the
alternatives are not looking too good either.
OTOH: there are reasons for declaring some elements/attributes obsolete,
so if you need them, then an obsolete doctype may be just the right one
for you.
FYI: I often use a 'transitional' doctype, but all my latest documents
will validate if I change the doctype to 'strict', so I'm just tricking
browsers - by choice ;-)
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
