David Dorward wrote: > I'd strongly advise against using XHTML (which has a large number of > gotchas) and Transitional (which includes large numbers of elements > and attributes that should not be used, and only a couple which might > be useful ... and then only very rarely). > > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd";> > > ... is almost certainly a better bet.
Since choice of doctype may actually affect how we apply CSS, would you be kind enough to go a little more in depth here? A strong advice against the use of XHTML may make someone think there's actually something wrong with a page like this: <http://www.w3.org/International/> ...or even this: <http://www.w3.org/> (look at top of source) I personally don't think so, but, of course, I know about the minor differences between HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0, and how to use them to my advantage. Others may not be so lucky. 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/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
