Are you using the right doctype

or just wasting your time

[Marshall]

I know this topic has been covered before, but after reading numerous threads on layout problems and noticing people switching to XHTML doctypes, in many cases needlessly (IMHO), I think two prior threads should be brought to everyone's attention:
Choosing the best doctype for your site [webmasterworld.com] posted by encyclo. a must read and
Why most of us should NOT use XHTML [webmasterworld.com] posted by DrDoc.

As I stated in a few threads recently, XHTML is not the next evolution of HTML and should only be used with XML, excluding RSS and XML sitemaps. Again, IMHO, if your page works fine, do not waste time, energy, and get frustrated trying to change to XHTML. And though there are probably those who will disagree with me as everyone is entitled to their opinion, just remember, in the end, it is your site and your time.

I hope this post will help, especially those new to web design or who are thinking about a re-design. Aside from the adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," the KISS principle is always the best route: Keep It Simple.

Marshall

[penders]

Yes the XHTML DOCTYPE is perhaps used rather inappropriately at times when its full meaning is not understood. But unfortunately there are several other influences to be aware of that are against the (would be) developer...

• Many recent HTML/JavaScript books include examples with an XHTML DOCTYPE without any further explanation.
  
• The client will sometimes insist on "XHTML" (because they've heard that "it's the latest"), the managers say 'yes' (because they may not know the differences themselves) and the developer is left without a great deal of say in the matter.
  
• Try arguing the case at a job interview [webmasterworld.com]. If you're not rock solid on your definition (or even if you are), you don't stand a chance! (But then may be you wouldn't want to work for them anyway!)
  

[Marshall]

penders,

Point well taken and obviously rocknbil made the right decision. But the comment that is emphasized in his post is my point, or counter-point as the case may be:

"Because it's the latest and most technologically advanced version of HTML."

XHTML is not the next step of HTML! If it were, why then are they developing HTML 5.0? Just because something is vogue does not make it right, or necessary. I think of those great things parents would say: "If Johnny jumped off a bridge, would you?" Just because wyz.com is using XHTML does not mean you should, especially if you are not using it correctly. In the end, is not one of the purposes of WebmasterWorld to help people do things correctly and efficiently?

So if I may repeat myself, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if you are not using XML, do not waste your time using XHTML doctype.

Marshall

[rocknbil]

One of the things I'm finding is people just accept "defaults" and don't give it much thought. I recently had a bout with a php programmer who was using an XHTML doctype and not a single thing in his output was valid XHTML - when asked, it was the same deal: it works, I never gave it any thought, it's what Dreamweaver opened for me when I created a new doc.

The key here, which is actually the same (or similar) argument as yours, is it works, so why fix it? It's the same old deal, to the client and the developer selling the product, presentation is everything - even though we all know it's not everything.

Unfortunately those that would benefit the most from these types of threads will never see them for this very reason. :-)

[Marshall]

it's what Dreamweaver opened for me when I created a new doc.

Expression Web will do the same thing, out of the box, but you can go into settings and change the default doctype. This, then (IMHO) is the fault of the designer and not the editor. A little research goes a long way, that is why I referenced the other posts. And you probably right, the people who need to read this probably won't.

Marshall