RE: [WSG] teaching students developing to web standards

[Tatham Oddie \(Fuel Advance\)]

Christian,   I agree with that. The word “transitional” implies that it’s about moving to newer standards.     Thanks,   Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Montoya Sent: Monday, 12 September 2005 8:20 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] teaching students developing to web standards   That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Transitional pages are full of deprecated HTML 4.0 tags that are not allowed in XHTML 1.1 or 2.0. Strict pages can usually be validated as XHTML 1.1 without any changes. Just read the XHTML specifications for differences between XHTML 1.0 and 1.1. It's about 3 lines. Strict means the page meets XHTML 1.0 specs completely. Transitional means the page has deprecated tags that are being ignored. It's a very simple difference. Anyone else concur? On 9/11/05, dwain alford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Christian Montoya wrote: > Actually, I forgot about this link too. This is a class at Cornell > University that teaches XHTML 1.0 Strict. Here's the link: > > http://cs130.cs.cornell.edu as was brought to my attention not too long ago, if your pages are strict, then the future life of the pages is shortened with any changes to the xhtml recommendations.  the transitional doctype seems to be a better choice because it will last longer than the strict doctype.  i think someone on this list brought this to my attention. dwain -- dwain alford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alforddesigngroup.com The Savior replied; "There is no such thing as sin;..." 'The Gospel of Mary of Magdala' ****************************************************** The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************