Anything that you hand-coded in one of the Markup Item or Page Markup areas would need to be policed for syntax differences. But anything that Freeway wrote would automatically be correct at either DOCTYPE. Freeway doesn’t work in HTML at all, it just outputs it at the end. That’s why you can change canoes in the middle of the stream like this with impunity. The layout (as an abstract thing) is converted (maybe sampled is a better word) into the chosen DOCTYPE at the moment of publishing, and the result is output – but never stored in the Freeway document. So you can change this around willy-nilly and your code will always be valid.
If you did write anything long-hand, the major differences between HTML 4.01 Transitional and XHTML Strict are as follows:
- DOCTYPE and Meta tags describe the content type, naturally
- All singleton tags
<br>
, <hr>
, <link>
have to be self-closed like this: <br/>
, <hr/>
, <link/>
- Links cannot have a target attribute
- Anchors go to the id attribute, not the name attribute, so you won’t ever see
<a name="foo"></a>
anywhere in your code to define a jump point; you’ll just see <div id="foo"…
and that will be a valid anchor target.
- All tags and their attributes are lower-case
There’s probably some more I’m forgetting, but that’s about it.
As far as better goes, there’s really no difference except personal preference. Neither one is “better” as long as it is written in a valid manner. Put another way, XHTML did not supersede HTML, it’s just a different branch of the same tree.
Proponents of XHTML point out that you can validate it as XML, which means that it has more inherent quality checks possible. In practical terms, though, browsers are written to be extraordinarily tolerant of badly-coded markup. (Nothing else really explains the success of Microsoft FrontPage.)
There is a school of (extremely pedantic) thought that says that you should not use XHTML unless you are serving the page under a “application/xhtml+xml” mime-type (something that’s set at the Apache server level). Otherwise (the argument goes) the browser just interprets XHTML as HTML anyway, so why bother? The reason nobody does this is that any version of IE < 10 (I think – maybe it’s 11) only shows a blank white page when you do.
Walter
On Sep 25, 2012, at 2:13 AM, RavenManiac wrote:
If I switch from HTML 4.01 Transitional to XHTML 1.0 Transitional encoding in an existing Freeway Pro document am I likely to break anything?
If so, how difficult will it be to locate and find the syntax problems?
And finally, is it better to use Transitional or Strict encoding?
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options