| 8:20 am on Jan 22, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I'd go for <!DOCTYPE html>
But new stuff I make is nowadays in polyglot (x)HTML5 anyway, never done HTML4.01 myself, always used xhtml during the era html4.01 was popular...
| 9:13 am on Jan 22, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I concur with <!DOCTYPE html> and HTML 5 as 4.01 is old school, no future in it unless you like building things that are obsolete before they're even finished.
| 10:28 am on Jan 22, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I think the question was about "transitional" vs. "strict". Personally I've never seen any reason for "strict". You can make a document that 100% follows the rules for Strict, and call it Transitional. But not the other way around.
| 1:58 pm on Jan 22, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I agree, use the HTML5 DOCTYPE:
It's short, easy to remember, and backwards compatible with HTML 4.01.
If your question is strict vs. transitional HTML 4.01, I'd go with strict. Transitional allows you to use presentational elements/attributes that have been deprecated, which allows for sloppy coding habits that will ultimately only make your job harder. If you're writing strict documents, then use the strict doctype. It's really only used for validation purposes, so using a transitional doctype may give you a false sense that you've written only strict markup.
| 5:05 am on Jan 23, 2013 (gmt 0)|
No new web pages have a need for the transitional doctype. The sold purpose of transitional is for web pages being transitioned to strict but still containing old deprecated markup from before 1999! You shouldn't be using old deprecated markup!
The doctype <!DOCTYPE html> puts all browsers into strict standards mode including as far back as IE6. This is the only doctype anyone should use anymore for HTML.
| 5:21 am on Jan 23, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I think I understand what you are saying, you mean use the Strict one.
But they both start with <!DOCTYPE html>
| 5:59 am on Jan 23, 2013 (gmt 0)|
No, I don't think you do understand. This, in it's entirety, is the HTML5 Doctype:
That's it. No less, no more. That's all you need and all you should be using.
| 8:26 am on Jan 23, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I see, thanks