Re: Strict or Transitional

David Dorward wrote:

> The name attribute (for anchors) was not removed from W3C
> derivatives of HTML until XHTML 1.1, which isn't really
> suited for client side use at present anyway.

Yes, sorry, then I confused this.  I only recall that it was
a XHTML version where you can't have text outside of block
elements, or at least that's a feature I miss in transitional:

The validator cannot tell me that I'm trying something stupid
when that stupidity is still allowed in transitional XHTML. :-)

Once I forced some version of strict or later just to see the
effect, and one of the problems was <base target="_top" />

I use it in "all" (about 60) my pages.  That version insisted
on a <base href="#" target="_top" /> IIRC.  Actually I should
now get rid of this dummy target="_top", it was a bad idea.

> I suppose the need to indicate to browsers which don't
> support HTML 4 (which is now over half a decade old!) 
> changes from other versions is a reason to use Transitional.

Yes, but I really like align= instead of learning CSS on my
small system where a legacy browser is the best choice.  HTML
without CSS _and_ without align= is a bit too minimalistic,
and CSS experiments with Netscape 4.x as "test tool" would be
plain nonsense.
                         Bye, Frank

Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2005 17:26:41 UTC