basic wrote: > > Val Sharp wrote: > >> Then we have another problem because, for example, page >> <http://members.netscapeonline.co.uk/valeriegsharp/> has the following >> DOCTYPE: >> >> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" >> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd";> > > this gives "strict" mode, or a better term "more standards compliant" mode. > see <http://www.hut.fi/u/hsivonen/doctype.html>
Yes, the terminology's a bit loose here - given that HTML defines a 'strict' dtd, which is not what I was using, the phrase 'standards compliant' would have been less confusing :-) -- Regards, Val Sharp - Edinburgh
