DAVOUD TOHIDY wrote: > [...] So based on what Eric states on that page, a strict doctype > requires that the correct CSS specifications to be applied to an > element such as the img in question. > > However almost standard mode does not necessarily requires it in SOME > cases like above. > > Am I correct?
Has nothing to do with requirements, and everything to do with "finding practical solutions when problems arose". There should (in the ideal and standardized world of web design) not be any differences in how CSS - written or default - is handled in Strict and Transitional - or Quirks mode. However, once the doctype was turned into an element for switching, web designers started using and abusing that switching mechanism without caring one bit about the actual standards. Result: nothing works as it was supposed to and those (browsers) who were hit the hardest took the practical steps necessary to avoid being sidelined - even if this meant bending whatever rules there was or writing new ones that suited their situation. Others made their own decisions on what to do, depending on their situation. Note that MSIE/win never adopted the "almost standard mode", and have had no problems with that since they never really adhered to what is known as the "standard mode" either. MSIE has followed its own "anything but standard mode" up to present releases, using the doctype to switch on. It is web designers use of that "anything but standard mode" that has created the need for 'version targeting' in MSIE8. > If yes, then that is what I mean. It is the strict doctype which > triggers the browsers to behave correctly or in another words render > correctly based on the correct CSS specifications. > > Is that correct? Most browsers agree somewhat on "Strict", but - as you can read from the above - the agreements are practical ones and don't assure anything across browser-land - least of all "perfect standard compliance". Doctypes with "Strict" is the relevant standard on source-code level. Doctypes with "Transitional" points to an intermediate - transitional - version of a standard, where a few elements from older standards are allowed for older documents that are harder to convert intact to a new and "Strict" standard. "Transitional" should *not* be used in _new_ documents, unless the quality of "Strict" can not be obtained - maybe because "Strict" doesn't allow something that one can not fix and/or do without. That's all there is - or was supposed to be - regarding the whole "Transitional" vs. "Strict" standard-versioning. Note that the latest standards and work in progress don't differentiate between "Strict" and "Transitional". They are, or will be, "Strict" and nothing else. Doctypes were not created to act as a switch-trigger in browsers, but browsers turned it into one since there isn't all that many other ways to figure out if web designers wanted an old non-standard based rendering or a slightly more standard based rendering. The fact that most web designers only wanted a "switch trigger" since they noticed that browsers reacted on it and that designers were told that they should have a doctype on top, has since muddled the whole issue. See: <http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_25.html> ...for a bit more about "how *not* to fix sites by adding a doctype". Again: doctypes and doctype-switching should *not* have anything to do with how CSS should be interpreted, but the fact that it does affect CSS is the only reason I'm responding on-list. - Interpretation-differences are not standardized by the W3C, and documentations elsewhere are next to non-existing. - Relying on existing interpretation-differences is not a very good idea, as most differences are caused by bugs, and the other differences are just practical solutions that may not last. - Serious web developers should use the CSS interpretation in "Strict" as baseline - after having checked with the relevant CSS standard what's most correct, and adjust all "Transitional" CSS interpretations to line up with what they want, and can get, in "Strict". From there one can style whatever as one like, and can get away with on the real www. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
