doc types

What are the differences between the doctypes? Which one should we use? Does
it depend on what type of code you are using? Why are there so many choices?

Thanks!

It identifies what kind of code you'll be writing. Improperly identifying
your code could lead to unexpected results when the page is displayed. The
last version of DW used HTML 4.01 Transitional by default, if you'd like to
stick with that. Trying out a Strict docytype and getting your code to
validate against the W3C validator is a good indication that you're up on
web standards and have a well-formed page.


"Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote

What are the differences between the doctypes? Which one should we use?
Does it depend on what type of code you are using? Why are there so many
choices?

Thanks!

did some reading up on it. so basically it's telling the browser how to
interpret the page, right? as far as loose vs. strict, if you want to appear
more code correct, you'd validate at strict. If you code towards loose and
it validates...then it works how you hope it should....?


"Lionstone" <HIDElionstone (AT) HIDEhushmail (DOT) com> wrote

It identifies what kind of code you'll be writing. Improperly identifying
your code could lead to unexpected results when the page is displayed.
The last version of DW used HTML 4.01 Transitional by default, if you'd
like to stick with that. Trying out a Strict docytype and getting your
code to validate against the W3C validator is a good indication that
you're up on web standards and have a well-formed page.


"Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dju68g$bn2$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
What are the differences between the doctypes? Which one should we use?
Does it depend on what type of code you are using? Why are there so many
choices?

Thanks!

but what's the deal with the xhtml strict/loose? Just incorprates XML
coding? So, if I'm not using XML, I shouldn't use it as a doctype right?


"Lionstone" <HIDElionstone (AT) HIDEhushmail (DOT) com> wrote

It identifies what kind of code you'll be writing. Improperly identifying
your code could lead to unexpected results when the page is displayed.
The last version of DW used HTML 4.01 Transitional by default, if you'd
like to stick with that. Trying out a Strict docytype and getting your
code to validate against the W3C validator is a good indication that
you're up on web standards and have a well-formed page.


"Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dju68g$bn2$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
What are the differences between the doctypes? Which one should we use?
Does it depend on what type of code you are using? Why are there so many
choices?

Thanks!

That would be one take on it, yes. If you are not using XML/XSLT, then the
only benefit using XHTML carries is the rigor of learning and using
'well-formed HTML' - not an insubstantial benefit, but not a necessary one,
either.

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================


"Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote

but what's the deal with the xhtml strict/loose? Just incorprates XML
coding? So, if I'm not using XML, I shouldn't use it as a doctype right?


"Lionstone" <HIDElionstone (AT) HIDEhushmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dju710$clq$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
It identifies what kind of code you'll be writing. Improperly
identifying your code could lead to unexpected results when the page is
displayed. The last version of DW used HTML 4.01 Transitional by default,
if you'd like to stick with that. Trying out a Strict docytype and
getting your code to validate against the W3C validator is a good
indication that you're up on web standards and have a well-formed page.


"Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dju68g$bn2$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
What are the differences between the doctypes? Which one should we use?
Does it depend on what type of code you are using? Why are there so many
choices?

Thanks!

Can't I use "well-formed HTML" and use the HTML Strict doctype as opposed to
the XHTML though?
well formed html is well formed html whether or not you use HTML doctype or
XHTML doctype is it not? I only say that because you said that would be the
only benefit of using the XHTML doctype....



"Murray *TMM*" <forums (AT) HAHAgreat-web-sights (DOT) com> wrote

That would be one take on it, yes. If you are not using XML/XSLT, then
the only benefit using XHTML carries is the rigor of learning and using
'well-formed HTML' - not an insubstantial benefit, but not a necessary
one, either.

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================


"Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dju7eg$d81$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
but what's the deal with the xhtml strict/loose? Just incorprates XML
coding? So, if I'm not using XML, I shouldn't use it as a doctype right?


"Lionstone" <HIDElionstone (AT) HIDEhushmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dju710$clq$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
It identifies what kind of code you'll be writing. Improperly
identifying your code could lead to unexpected results when the page is
displayed. The last version of DW used HTML 4.01 Transitional by
default, if you'd like to stick with that. Trying out a Strict docytype
and getting your code to validate against the W3C validator is a good
indication that you're up on web standards and have a well-formed page.


"Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dju68g$bn2$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
What are the differences between the doctypes? Which one should we use?
Does it depend on what type of code you are using? Why are there so
many choices?

Thanks!

No. Strict HTML4 is not "well-formed HTML" in that it still have
non-terminated tags, e.g.,

<br>, <img>, <meta>, etc.

In well-formed HTML, every tag is terminated, even if that means it must be
done within the tag itself, e.g.,

<br />
<img />
<meta />

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================


"Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote

Can't I use "well-formed HTML" and use the HTML Strict doctype as opposed
to the XHTML though?
well formed html is well formed html whether or not you use HTML doctype
or XHTML doctype is it not? I only say that because you said that would be
the only benefit of using the XHTML doctype....



"Murray *TMM*" <forums (AT) HAHAgreat-web-sights (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:djvtlu$kob$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
That would be one take on it, yes. If you are not using XML/XSLT, then
the only benefit using XHTML carries is the rigor of learning and using
'well-formed HTML' - not an insubstantial benefit, but not a necessary
one, either.

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================


"Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dju7eg$d81$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
but what's the deal with the xhtml strict/loose? Just incorprates XML
coding? So, if I'm not using XML, I shouldn't use it as a doctype right?


"Lionstone" <HIDElionstone (AT) HIDEhushmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dju710$clq$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
It identifies what kind of code you'll be writing. Improperly
identifying your code could lead to unexpected results when the page is
displayed. The last version of DW used HTML 4.01 Transitional by
default, if you'd like to stick with that. Trying out a Strict
docytype and getting your code to validate against the W3C validator is
a good indication that you're up on web standards and have a
well-formed page.


"Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dju68g$bn2$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
What are the differences between the doctypes? Which one should we
use? Does it depend on what type of code you are using? Why are there
so many choices?

Thanks!

Gotcha. Now, why in the HTML Validator it complained about my style sheet
link being terminated? I took out the /> and it went through.

Also, the way the site was set up (pre-bought package - but have made
numerous fixes and changes), the addresses have ...well, not sure what they
are called...but they have @ and i and n and = to continue the url. I know I
can fix the @ by doing the &amp; to validate, but what about the other
characters? How do I fix these urls so that the page validates?


"Murray *TMM*" <forums (AT) HAHAgreat-web-sights (DOT) com> wrote

No. Strict HTML4 is not "well-formed HTML" in that it still have
non-terminated tags, e.g.,

br>, <img>, <meta>, etc.

In well-formed HTML, every tag is terminated, even if that means it must
be done within the tag itself, e.g.,

br /
img /
meta /

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================


"Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dk06ua$36i$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
Can't I use "well-formed HTML" and use the HTML Strict doctype as opposed
to the XHTML though?
well formed html is well formed html whether or not you use HTML doctype
or XHTML doctype is it not? I only say that because you said that would
be the only benefit of using the XHTML doctype....



"Murray *TMM*" <forums (AT) HAHAgreat-web-sights (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:djvtlu$kob$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
That would be one take on it, yes. If you are not using XML/XSLT, then
the only benefit using XHTML carries is the rigor of learning and using
'well-formed HTML' - not an insubstantial benefit, but not a necessary
one, either.

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================


"Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dju7eg$d81$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
but what's the deal with the xhtml strict/loose? Just incorprates XML
coding? So, if I'm not using XML, I shouldn't use it as a doctype
right?


"Lionstone" <HIDElionstone (AT) HIDEhushmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dju710$clq$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
It identifies what kind of code you'll be writing. Improperly
identifying your code could lead to unexpected results when the page
is displayed. The last version of DW used HTML 4.01 Transitional by
default, if you'd like to stick with that. Trying out a Strict
docytype and getting your code to validate against the W3C validator
is a good indication that you're up on web standards and have a
well-formed page.


"Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dju68g$bn2$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
What are the differences between the doctypes? Which one should we
use? Does it depend on what type of code you are using? Why are there
so many choices?

Thanks!

Show me the page, please Dan.

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================


"Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote

Gotcha. Now, why in the HTML Validator it complained about my style sheet
link being terminated? I took out the /> and it went through.

Also, the way the site was set up (pre-bought package - but have made
numerous fixes and changes), the addresses have ...well, not sure what
they are called...but they have @ and i and n and = to continue the url. I
know I can fix the @ by doing the &amp; to validate, but what about the
other characters? How do I fix these urls so that the page validates?


"Murray *TMM*" <forums (AT) HAHAgreat-web-sights (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dk0a5i$781$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
No. Strict HTML4 is not "well-formed HTML" in that it still have
non-terminated tags, e.g.,

br>, <img>, <meta>, etc.

In well-formed HTML, every tag is terminated, even if that means it must
be done within the tag itself, e.g.,

br /
img /
meta /

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================


"Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dk06ua$36i$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
Can't I use "well-formed HTML" and use the HTML Strict doctype as
opposed to the XHTML though?
well formed html is well formed html whether or not you use HTML doctype
or XHTML doctype is it not? I only say that because you said that would
be the only benefit of using the XHTML doctype....



"Murray *TMM*" <forums (AT) HAHAgreat-web-sights (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:djvtlu$kob$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
That would be one take on it, yes. If you are not using XML/XSLT, then
the only benefit using XHTML carries is the rigor of learning and using
'well-formed HTML' - not an insubstantial benefit, but not a necessary
one, either.

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================


"Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dju7eg$d81$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
but what's the deal with the xhtml strict/loose? Just incorprates XML
coding? So, if I'm not using XML, I shouldn't use it as a doctype
right?


"Lionstone" <HIDElionstone (AT) HIDEhushmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dju710$clq$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
It identifies what kind of code you'll be writing. Improperly
identifying your code could lead to unexpected results when the page
is displayed. The last version of DW used HTML 4.01 Transitional by
default, if you'd like to stick with that. Trying out a Strict
docytype and getting your code to validate against the W3C validator
is a good indication that you're up on web standards and have a
well-formed page.


"Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dju68g$bn2$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
What are the differences between the doctypes? Which one should we
use? Does it depend on what type of code you are using? Why are
there so many choices?

Thanks!

The page I'm still working on is here:
http://www.petpiazza.com/testing/2006/oz2.asp

Some of the links are null right now, so if you want examples of the URLs
then check out the calendar, poll "view results"...etc...

Thanks!

Dan



"Murray *TMM*" <forums (AT) HAHAgreat-web-sights (DOT) com> wrote

Show me the page, please Dan.

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================


"Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dk0dnc$bpk$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
Gotcha. Now, why in the HTML Validator it complained about my style sheet
link being terminated? I took out the /> and it went through.

Also, the way the site was set up (pre-bought package - but have made
numerous fixes and changes), the addresses have ...well, not sure what
they are called...but they have @ and i and n and = to continue the url.
I know I can fix the @ by doing the &amp; to validate, but what about
the other characters? How do I fix these urls so that the page validates?


"Murray *TMM*" <forums (AT) HAHAgreat-web-sights (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dk0a5i$781$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
No. Strict HTML4 is not "well-formed HTML" in that it still have
non-terminated tags, e.g.,

br>, <img>, <meta>, etc.

In well-formed HTML, every tag is terminated, even if that means it must
be done within the tag itself, e.g.,

br /
img /
meta /

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================


"Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dk06ua$36i$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
Can't I use "well-formed HTML" and use the HTML Strict doctype as
opposed to the XHTML though?
well formed html is well formed html whether or not you use HTML
doctype or XHTML doctype is it not? I only say that because you said
that would be the only benefit of using the XHTML doctype....



"Murray *TMM*" <forums (AT) HAHAgreat-web-sights (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:djvtlu$kob$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
That would be one take on it, yes. If you are not using XML/XSLT,
then the only benefit using XHTML carries is the rigor of learning and
using 'well-formed HTML' - not an insubstantial benefit, but not a
necessary one, either.

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================


"Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dju7eg$d81$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
but what's the deal with the xhtml strict/loose? Just incorprates XML
coding? So, if I'm not using XML, I shouldn't use it as a doctype
right?


"Lionstone" <HIDElionstone (AT) HIDEhushmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dju710$clq$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
It identifies what kind of code you'll be writing. Improperly
identifying your code could lead to unexpected results when the page
is displayed. The last version of DW used HTML 4.01 Transitional by
default, if you'd like to stick with that. Trying out a Strict
docytype and getting your code to validate against the W3C validator
is a good indication that you're up on web standards and have a
well-formed page.


"Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dju68g$bn2$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
What are the differences between the doctypes? Which one should we
use? Does it depend on what type of code you are using? Why are
there so many choices?

Thanks!