Rick Merrill wrote: > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote: >> Rick Merrill wrote: >>> So which is really "better", >>> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> >>> or <!DOCTYPE html> ? >> >> "Transitional" is for, well, transitioning old documents when you want >> to assign a doctype but don't want to change the code. New documents >> should be Strict. Unless you need the new stuff of HTML5, use: >> >> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" >> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd";> >> >>> Furthermore, Does SM's Composer do better with or assume one or the >>> other? >> >> Composer is so old and un-updated that it probably doesn't matter. I >> doubt if it will even do Transitional correctly in its WYSIWYG mode. > > NOT UPDATED?! Sigh! Well, it was "sweet" while it lasted.
I don't remember exactly when Composer was last worked on, but using decades instead of years to describe is closer. It has been forked a few times: NVu, CompoZer, and BlueGriffon. Looks like of those, only BlueGriffon is still active. <http://www.bluegriffon.org/> Personally, I use Bluefish for my web work. <http://bluefish.openoffice.nl/index.html> -- -bts -This space for rent, but the price is high _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
