4.01 Transitional vs. 4.01 Strict

[xdeadd0llx]

Hi folks,

After using 4.01 Transitional for a long time I decided to finally perfect Strict - It's all working fine and passes through w3c, but now is the problem of whether to use it or not..(in truth I prefer the "old" way heh).

I get the feeling that Strict is pretty limiting (even more so) in regards to accessibility...especially because EVERYTHING is in css. Does anyone have an opinion on the virtues of transitional vs. strict.. and should I hold off from converting over? I think it's important to "keep up with the times" but aren't we in effect leaving a huge chunk of the population behind? I'm a bit confused but leaning towards staying with transitional..

However I'd love to hear some other ideas on the subject.. Thanks.

[QuietDean]

Hiya,

I would think that total css useage makes your page more accessible. Because your markup is clean, then it can be read by any device that can read xhtml. Examples: Lynx text browser, PDA's, Mobile phones, 'voice' browsers for the blind etc.

The only people I can see that 'suffer' from a total-css design are people using NS4.*. However, if they are still using NS4.*, then they must have very good reasons for doing so, and I very much doubt they care much how 'pretty' a site is, they are looking for information. As long as your design is good, they will still be able to get the information, it just wont look so nice. Which I am sure they are used to

[xdeadd0llx]

Hi Dean,

Yep, that's a real good point you made (and it IS pretty neat to to be able to say I can css everything hehe) but I have a question about Javascript.. (now we cross over topics oops).

I noted that the Strict syntax was <script type="javascript"> rather than the old <script language="javascript">. I run IE 5.5 (long story) - which is hardly totally in the stoneage, but it wont read javascript now.

What's a girl to do? I've not read a whole stack on this topic.. any solutions or is it IE 5.5 be damned/go back to Transitional?

[QuietDean]

offhand, I think

<script type="text/javascript">

is also acceptable, see if it works.