potter, stop shitting on a good thread.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by potter
Yes, there are differences. Differences in how the code is written, not in how a layout will be displayed in a browser.
|
As StuartD said, a
DOCTYPE does have everything to do with how a web page is rendered. You say it doesn't matter and it will not effect the appearance of a web page, but what you clearly don't understand is that DOCTYPE's are used to tell the client how to render a web page.
So don't forget to add a DOCTYPE 
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by World Wide Web Consortium
Why specify a doctype? Because it defines which version of (X)HTML your document is actually using, and this is a critical piece of information needed by browsers or other tools processing the document.
For example, specifying the doctype of your document allows you to use tools such as the Markup Validator to check the syntax of your (X)HTML (and hence discovers errors that may affect the way your page is rendered by various browsers). Such tools won't be able to work if they do not know what kind of document you are using.
But the most important thing is that with most families of browsers, a doctype declaration will make a lot of guessing unnecessary, and will thus trigger a "standard" parsing mode, where the understanding (and, as a result, the display) of the document is not only faster, it is also consistent and free of any bad surprise that documents without doctype will create.
|
Also your CSS attributes are old school bro. Those ones have pretty much been around forever and you probably wouldn't notice a difference in the rending of code as basic as yours. Try using some more advanced CSS features such as those in HTML5.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by potter
If you want to somehow prove you're right. Just show me one example of a layout written for one doctype, and then have it look different in another doctype. It would end the discussion, and should be real simple for you to do since you say doctypes have effects on floats, margins, 0px, or positioning.
|
Here is your prove. Maybe you should read up on the different formatting standards for each DOCTYPE.
I suggest you read the following article as well:
Fix Your Site With the Right DOCTYPE!
Written by
Jeffery Zeldman who is a huge advocate of web standards.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jeffery Zeldman
DOCTYPEs are a key component of compliant web pages: your markup and CSS won’t validate without them.
Using an incomplete or outdated DOCTYPE—or no DOCTYPE at all—throws these same browsers into “Quirks” mode, where the browser assumes you’ve written old-fashioned, invalid markup and code per the depressing industry norms of the late 1990s.
In this setting, the browser will attempt to parse your page in backward–compatible fashion, rendering your CSS as it might have looked in IE4, and reverting to a proprietary, browser–specific DOM. (IE reverts to the IE DOM; Mozilla and Netscape 6 revert to who knows what.)
Clearly, this is not what you want. But it is often what you’ll get, due to the preponderance of incorrect or incomplete DOCTYPE information this article hopes to correct.
|
So, did you actually read what I wrote?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by potter
You're telling me you'll code a layout that doesn't work properly. But setting the doctype to strict makes it suddenly work? It's just ludicrous.
|
Not it's called a web standard and a DOCTYPE is clearly something you didn't, but hopefully now to understand.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by potter
Properly written code also has nothing to do with w3c valid code.
|
Wrong, because it wouldn't be 'proper' without that W3C standard.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by potter
You can make a shit layout but have valid code. Just like you can write a shit sentence but it'll pass through spell check ;) .
|
Code structure and design should never be intertwined. However, this is a whole separate discussion.