- From: Geoff Deering <gdeering@acslink.net.au>
- Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 14:24:12 +1000
- To: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
- Cc: "WAI GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
-----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Kynn Bartlett Sent: Saturday, 30 August 2003 12:49 PM On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 06:40 AM, Geoff Deering wrote: > What do developers use a TRANSITIONAL DTD for? Mostly it is used when > tables are required for layouts. What huh? The DTD choice has no effect -- zero, nada, none -- on whether you can use tables for layouts. It's _perfectly valid_ to use tables for layout in XHTML 1.0 Strict, for example. That's right, that's true. But it also shows that the intention of separating content from display markup as not being fully implemented in the design of the document. At least the content will still be more flexible because some of the more fixed attributes in transitional are not available in strict. But that is why transitional is there isn't it, to support layout in older or more no standard compliant browsers? I use Transitional myself because it's a bit more secure for what I need it to do, and because I may need to make inline changes in some of my blog posts. Quite honestly, there is little difference between <div align="right"> and <div style="text-align: right;"> -- except that the first is safer because it's more likely to work correctly. The first becomes much more and an issue when trying to generate content out of an XML repository. It starts to make it a pain in the arse for architecting large document repositories. This is where you wish you could kiss transitional goodbye and just use strict and keep content and display separate. If the working group is going to make assumptions based on why people use specific DTDs, I would like to see that backed up with hard data, e.g. a survey of Web developers asking them why they've chosen to use a specific DTD, or not use one at all. I may be able to contribute something towards this in the future. Geoff Deering
Received on Saturday, 30 August 2003 00:24:56 UTC