DOCTYPE on site-wide basis

Probably a totally "dim-and-stupid" question

[vkaryl]

If I have some pages which validate to 4.01 Strict, and others which validate only to 4.01 Transitional, is that going to cause problems somewhere?

Specifically, I have (for the moment) a framed site wherein I MUST use the deprecated "target" tag. The index page and all of the content pages validate to 4.01 Strict. The frameset itself validates to 4.01 Frameset; the pages which comprise the frameset itself validate only to 4.01 Transitional, due to the fact that various links therein need to either load into the main frame, or load into a new page as target="_blank".

I will (when time allows) be migrating OUT of frames for this site, but that will be a couple of months or so in the future. In the meantime, will a mish-mash of page DOCTYPE declarations cause monumental problems?

[Mind you, I have ZERO interest in or need for search engine anything: this is a website for a tiny tiny town where we PREFER not to have thousands of people "drop in".... I am simply concerned about basic usability and "code purity" if that's not a silly thing to say.]

[edited by: vkaryl at 2:16 am (utc) on Feb. 10, 2004]

[tedster]

No problems at all. The doctype, or DTD, is a DOCUMENT type -- and there is no formal definition of a "website" to be concerned about.

[vkaryl]

Thanks. I was hoping that was the case. Life was SO much simpler in some ways when "validation" was an unknown word in the lexicon of the website!

And y'know, Tedster, et al, thanks as well for ALL the help I've garnered from this site in the last few months. Y'all are about the nicest group of help-folks out there - REAL help, no nasties....

Bless you all!

[vkaryl]

Okay. 'nother question, or maybe just an observation: would it not therefore (and considering specifically the various initiatives for individuals with disabilities) be a good idea to HAVE a "site-wide" validation?

F'rinstance, if one's whole site is accessible for people with sight difficulties, wouldn't it be a good thing to have something in the doctype which specifically addressed that? Or perhaps just for "persons with disabilities" or whatever, since listing doctypes for the many thousands of possible disabling situations is certainly not logical....

[Purple Martin]

To answer the question of whether we need a site-wide validation (sitetype?), we first need to define what a site is.

From a computer's point of view, there isn't really any such thing as a "site". There is a world wide web which consits of many individual pages, most of which link to one or more other pages. The way we like to group some pages together as a "site" in our minds is purely conceptual. Pages in a site don't have to be all located in the same folder, or even hosted on the same server. Pages in a site don't necesarily all have the same webmaster looking after them. Individual pages can even belong to more than one site.

Therefore, I think it would be difficult, maybe even inappropriate, to implement a sitetype. Nice question though.

[vkaryl]

Well, yes - while I'm aware of all that empirically still I think of "sites" as "wholes" - no matter where in electronic space they may actually reside (if that isn't a complete contradiction in terms! Kind of like asking a black hole's address....)

I'm looking a the hundreds of pages for which I'm the responsible party, regardless that they're "housed" on several different domains, on various servers, and that some pages for a site may "live" on one of the other servers for whatever reason. And I'm thinking that I need to make sure that each and every page for which I have responsibility is accessible to the widest number of people possible (um. Okay, "ENGLISH-speaking people.... I can't translate into other languages.... and so far the web's ability to do so leaves a fair amount to be desired....)

So that means that each site I run could be "validated" as "accessible", as a "whole", no matter where the pages live, or that someone else occasionally helps me out with updates etc. Perhaps this is all just hot air, but seems to me it's something to aim towards anyway.

[Purple Martin]

I can fully understand your desire to validate a site in one go, rather than validating many individual pages one at a time.

Luckily, there are many downloadable tools which can do this for you, some of which let you add a little graphical logo to say that your entire site is valid and/or accessible. However, I would still want to validate at least a sample of a site's pages with the W3C MarkUp Validation Service to make sure the other tool is doing a good job.

[twist]

I have (for the moment) a framed site wherein I MUST use the deprecated "target" tag.

Are you opposed to using javascript? If not, there is probably a substitute for the target tag that will validate.

I use this to replace target=_blank, if the visitor has Javascript turned off it will just open their page in the same window.

<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
if( window!= window.top ) { top.location.href = location.href; }
function NewPage() {
if(!document.getElementsByTagName ) { return; }
var anchors = document.getElementsByTagName( "a" );
for( var loop = 0; loop < anchors.length; loop++ ) {
var anchor = anchors[ loop ];
if( anchor.getAttribute( "href" ) && anchor.getAttribute( "rel" ) == "external" ) {
anchor.target = "_blank";
}
}
}
window.onload = NewPage; 
// -->
</script>

and this one to keep my pages from being framed, if someone frames my page and then only visitors to the persons site with Javascript off would be able to view my pages framed.

<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
if( window!= window.top ) { top.location.href = location.href; }
// -->
</script>

My pages validate in xhtml 1.1 using the above scripts. There might be a work around for your 'target' issues too.

P.S. I didn't write any of the above code, picked one up from here and another at a website.

[vkaryl]

Oh no - not opposed to js at all. In fact, the darn site already requires a disclaimer to the effect that those with js turned off will have a problem getting the most out of the site's functions.

I'm working toward "flattening" the site (though I personally prefer framed sites, I do understand the thrust of thought away from that specific). I was simply not looking to go into any MORE js than is already there - and in fact, while I do appreciate your script examples, I've decided just to validate to "4.01 transitional" for now and leave the targeting info alone.

I should have the whole thing redone within just a couple of months (spare time.... *sigh* I repeat, day jobs are the PITS!), and that should solve the whole problem. I hope.

Or not. And if not, you'd better believe js will be called upon again - "into the breech, into the breech, rode the 400" or whatever it was.

Thanks!