On Aug 1, 2012, at 9:11 AM, Georg <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01.08.2012 14:41, Tedd Sperling wrote: >> >> As for "good practice", using a tiny amount of code to accomplish something >> is better than using more than what's needed. > > If you say so :-) > > regards > Georg
Well... I'm just simple that way -- maybe too simple for this list. But you raise a good point, namely one should consider the demands of the page in choosing a doctype, right? Unfortunately/fortunately there are many choices, for example: http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html What is a novice to do? Can the choice be simple? What is wrong with using? <!DOCTYPE html> Sure it doesn't have a *real* DTD, but the W3C validator does somehow validate pages that have this DOCTYPE declaration, right? So, there must be some sort of *standards* it validates contents against, right? Where/what is that "DTD"? I think that would be an interesting thing to know. Any answers for this simple person? Cheers, tedd _____________________ [email protected] http://sperling.com ______________________________________________________________________ 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/
