Hey Dory, There are probably more detailed outline of all the differences but the ones listed are a start.
If you are after strict validation, then the W3C's HTML validator is your friend. When you test a document using the tool it will tell you what is invalid and (even though the explanations are sometimes a little intense) give you an explanation on what is wrong. These explanations are a good teaching aid! It is also important to understand that a strict and valid document is not the ultimate aim - it is just one aspect of best practice. For example, you can create a document that is valid but uses poor semantics or poor accessible markup. Ideally we should be aiming to create documents that: - Valid - Use Semantic markup - Use Accessible markup - Separate markup, presentation and behaviour Thanks Russ on 30/4/08 8:44 AM, Dory at wrote: > I have never seen the differences between the two doc types spelled > out like this. When I was learning CSS our instructor taught us to use > transitional-- less problems she said. I guess I fell into the belief > that strict was for those who knew CSS "forward and backward" That > strict was unobtainable for those of us who still refer to a css > handbook at times and have a sense of dread with a new IE browser > release. There are times when getting a page to work on all browsers > and validate can be daunting enough just in transitional... > > Is this really all the difference between the two doctypes? If I print > this out and place it beside the CSS handbook could I possibly obtain > Strict validation? > > Thank you for posting this, > Dory ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
