Transitional to Strict

Mark

I just moved Vanilla 0.9.3 over from Transitional to Strict.

Make sure you hard-refresh to get the latest js and css files and be on the lookout for errors.

SpookyET

By the way, why did you add the xml declaration? I thought that IE has problems with that.

jos

You mean the xml declaration? The adding will cause IE6 to fall back to quirks mode.

SpookyET

I meant the xml declaration, sorry.

Ben

Well, I'll just go and redo my style again...

Elliott Hird

Next up, XHTML 1.1

Bergamot

Why?

Mark

ben: sorry, hopefully it's not too much of a burden. I know that for this vanilla style it only took a very small number of css changes (I think I only had to add two new classes from what I recall). I just know that a lot of people have been asking for strict for a long time.

Mark

Also, since this thread is sticky, I should mention that I went through the entire framework, people, vanilla, and swell and changed all templates and just about every single class file and function to use single quotes instead of double. We might see a few bugs crop up over the next few days.

lech

Extension authors might wish to tweak their extensions to suit if they notice any problems later on :)

nick1presta

Elliott Hird
Next up, XHTML 1.1

Why? XHTML 1.1 should only be used and served as application/xml+xhtml when you're using XML. AFAIK, you're not using XML and thus have no need for XHTML 1.1 doctype.

Hell, we could be using the HTML 4.01 DTD. I suggest you stick with XHTML 1.0 Strict served as text/html for backwards compatibility.

crazybat

Hmmm. Well, being the Web Standards guy that I am, allow me to clarify something about the way this is set up now.

Having the xml prologue at the top of the document;
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

This will throw the page into 'Quirks Mode' for Internet Explorer. This will cause some issues with styling of your document versus styling for other non-IE browsers. Issues like the box model, images, centering of content using margin: auto and other weird stuff. Usually it's better to design to strict mode as you know it will look somewhat the same across the modern browsers. IE included.

Also, there is no real advantage using the xml prologue as you are not serving this document as XML to IE. It's just tag soup.

Now, you will still be able to see the content without issue, but there's no real advantage to setting up the document like this. Like nick1presta, you could use HTML 4.01 DTD, but I would stick to at least a Strict DTD.

If you are going to stick with XHTML, then you can go with XHTML 1.0 Strict. But again, IE will not currently take any advantage of this. Plus, the content-type should be defined as text/html as that is all it really is, from IE's perspective.

But, I think the bigger issue is designing for strict versus quirks mode and the design differences with IE. Something to consider.

Regards,
cb

placenamehere

you can use xhtml transitional doctypes without tripping quirks mode in IE.. the choice of dtd vs. what rendering mode you want to hit is fairly flexible and independant. here's a good chart of what triggers when: http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/ as for what dtd to pick, well.. i'd be cautious of a strict dtd as others in this thread are due to crazyness of user input.. but if you're handling that well enough not to run into some of the validation gotchas (i haven't looked under the hood) then it shouldn't matter (and if you're not handling it well, then it won't matter either because strict or trans you wont validate)

crazybat

@placenamehere Yes, XHTML Transitional can be used without tripping quirks mode - just as you can use HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Strict and XHTML 1.1 in standards mode as well. As you've pointed out with the link, you can see the effects for the different user agents. What it really gets down to is how tight you want to get with your markup. For me, the stricter you are now, the better off you will be down the road. As for picking which document type to use, I do see your point about not being able to control the input. When people can enter in invalid markup, then there goes the validation. But, you would hope that this kind of stuff is handles within the functionality of the forum itself. I'm still getting familiar with Vanilla, so I can't say what is being done. Anyone have insight into how the comments/markup are treated by Vanilla?

mattisfrommars

Strict makes my head hurt. I'm just too lazy to follow the rules. If i'm trying then i'll validate to XHTML transitional (the coding standard i learned to code with), but other then that- i just put a firefox sticker over any gaping holes in my web page for IE users.

nick1presta

but other then that- i just put a firefox sticker over any gaping holes in my web page for IE users.

lol. LAME

mattisfrommars

yeah, but you'd be surprised how blind the non computerised are. 60-70% of people still using IE don't really care if your text doesn't align, or your box doesn't float or what have you. Compare that to the 0.00001% of people (i made that number up :P) who actually give a crap if your page validates to XHTML 1.0 Strict. And you play to your strengths and not wasting time on people who want their code to be structured nicely.

giginger

Hey, 92% of statistics are made up anyway!

mattisfrommars

91.7% i think (i think i have an "off topic" demon today :P)

Mark

I realize there are flaws in the xhtml - a lot of them.

I'm excitedly waiting to see what these guys come up with.

Bergamot

mark: don't hold your breath...