|
|
Posted by Andy Dingley on 03/21/06 16:13
xyZed wrote:
> Other than the opening of links with target="_blank" my pages
> validated with XHTML strict (apart from the useless affiliate
> javascript links which is another post) Should I seriously consider
> switching to strict?
There are two benefits to Strict.
- It triggers standards modes in browser CSS rendering.
- It compels you not to use certain bad features left behind in
transitional (e.g. <font>)
Now the first one is important. You really do need to trigger this, but
you can also do it with transitional (if you use exactly the right
doctype).
The second one is also important. But if you know what you're doing,
then you can avoid these elements anyway, even if labelled under a
Transitional doctype. The doctype alone does not make your code any
better! It's not writing rubbish into your code that stops it being
rubbish, not voodoo doctypes.
As you've also noticed, then target disappears too. This is a bad thing
- target was removed in favour of its future replacement, not because
it's obsolete. The _use_ of target is also a usability question, not an
implementation question. If you want to use target for your pages, then
go ahead and do so. Do it either by switching to Trans (as noted above)
or by writing invalid code under Strict. A known invalidity isn't the
worst thing in the world.
Most of all though, ditch the <font> bogosities. What you do is more
important than how you label it.
XHTML 1.1 is still unusable (forces you into XML, which the web just
doesn't support yet)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|