W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > June 2005

Re: Which DTD is better Transitional or Strict?

From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 07:41:43 +0100
To: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050620064143.GA17225@us-lot.org>

On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 06:10:21AM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:

> >> Depends on what you want.  If you want "visible with any
> >> browser" you need some of the "transitional" features.
>  
> > No, you don't.
> 
> align="right" is rather essential

For what? I haven't used it for years, CSS does the job in modern
browsers, and its just presentation so it doesn't matter when it
doesn't work in other browsers.

> for <del> to have any effect you need <s><del>,

Maybe in some broken browsers. <del> isn't very commonly used though.

> and for colours you need even <font>.

Which is presentation that it doesn't matter if it fails.

>  As long as it's only decorative you could drop colours, deletions,
> and align=, but sometimes it's semantically important.

Perhaps with implied semantics, but not with any semantics actually
specified in the document. WCAG explicitly warns against using colour
to convey information, and what semantics can align indicate anyway?

> > 1.1 is (for most practical purposes) 1.0 Strict with the
> > name attribute for <a> removed. No need to start mucking
> > about validating against it.
> 
> No more target= in <base> or no more <base> without href=,
> IIRC, and no text outside of block level elements.  Maybe I
> confuse it, I tested it only once.

All features of 1.0 Strict.

-- 
David Dorward                                      http://dorward.me.uk
Received on Monday, 20 June 2005 06:41:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:19 GMT