Document Types (DTD)

[sammiedawg]

I have been using Macromedia Dreamweaver 8 to build my site. Every time I go and create a new HTML file using the software, it prompts me to select a 'document type.'

Macromedia provides the following options for document types:
-- None
-- HTML 4.01 Traditional
-- HTML 4.01 Strict
-- XHTML 1.0 Traditional (This is the document type that is default)
-- XHTML 1.0 Strict
-- XHTML 1.1
-- XHTML Mobile 1.0

Are document types necessary? I usually just select "none" as document type.

Thanks

[BerksWebGuy]

They are highly recommended, so browsers know how to render them. I would use the default. After publishing it and putting it online, go to http://validator.w3.org and validate the page (the previous link should be your good friend for checking your pages). Related Article. (http://www.alistapart.com/articles/doctype/)

[sammiedawg]

After I added the "XHTML 1.0 Traditional " selection in Macromedia, the layout on some of my web pages look different in Internet Explorer 6.

But when I leave the document type out from my code, everything looks fine in the latest version of Firefox and Internet Explorer 6.

I read the article that you posted, but it seems like if I add the document type, I would have to rework the coding on many pages within my site - Do you think my site will be okay if I leave it out?

[BerksWebGuy]

Validate your pages using the link I posted before, with and without the doctype, and look at the results. Most likely if you fix those problems that the validator points out, your site should look the same (or at least the same after some minor fixes) on different browsers.

I would highly recommend using the doctype, especially if you're just designing the pages now (why be behind).

[g4mby]

But when I leave the document type out from my code, everything looks fine in the latest version of Firefox and Internet Explorer 6.
But what about other versions of the same browsers, other browsers and other OS's? Sticking to standards and making sure there are no errors in your HTML will help to ensure that all web visitors see the same or similar. If you use style sheets validate those as well. The Web Design Group (http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/) offer an alternative validator

[sammiedawg]

Thanks for the advice

So when using validator.w3.org, you have to validate each page...one by one? Is there a way where the validator will check every page on your web site with the input of one URL?

Thanks

[g4mby]

Thanks for the advice

So when using validator.w3.org, you have to validate each page...one by one? Is there a way where the validator will check every page on your web site with the input of one URL?
Did you not look at the WDG Validator? There is a box called "Validate entire site". Check that and it will follow the links to all your pages.

[YvetteKuhns]

Choose HTML 4.01 Traditional for now. If you plan to use XHTML, then you can rescan and fix all those empty element tags and change all of your tags to lowercase.

[Neat Pete]

To validate all your pages at once, try www.nikitathespider.com - it's great for a whole site.

Don't worry about staying on line, just give a correct email address, and it will send you the links to the results when it's done. You can bookmark the same page if you want to.

Phil is nice bloke and it's still free, so send him some feedback. He answers his email too.

Nikita only reads each page once, so you will see (in all its glory) all the cases where pages are not served first go - something the forums have been complaining about for months, but support tells you to press your refresh button.

[Doc C]

W3C should pay you for all the good press you give them, keyplyr. :)

[Neat Pete]

To: keyplyr

Oh yes, that may well be so about the W3C. But you totally under estimate Phil in Sweden - he knows validation inside out.

If W3C is so good, how come it can't validate a whole site???