New DOCTYPE needed

  • 4
  • Idea
  • Updated 7 years ago
  • Under Consideration
I'm trying to add a HTML 5 feature (localStorage) but this is not possible with the strict DOCTYPE:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

I recommend using the transitional one which will allow me to use this feature on my website:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

This will allow more HTML 5 features.
I hope you consider this or at least tell me why the yola company has decided to use the STRICT DOCTYPE.
Photo of Shawn Holman

Shawn Holman

  • 486 Posts
  • 26 Reply Likes
  • unsure

Posted 8 years ago

  • 4
Photo of Nathan

Nathan, Champion

  • 3739 Posts
  • 307 Reply Likes
This is a good idea. I think our sites don't validate with the W3C Validator because of this strict !DOCTYPE. Hopefully they will consider changing it to transitional, as strict doesn't allow stuff and makes our sites have a bunch of errors with W3C.

Kind regards,
Nathan
Photo of Laura Thomas

Laura Thomas

  • 4536 Posts
  • 211 Reply Likes
Hi Shawn and Nathan,

I'm not certain who on our team is best suited to address this, so please bear with me while I ask around.
Photo of Shawn Holman

Shawn Holman

  • 486 Posts
  • 26 Reply Likes
I know it sounds kind of weird, but changing the DOCTYPE will help lots of scripter's(:
Photo of the_pete

the_pete

  • 65 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
Official Response
Hey Shawn

You might be right, we should have chosen to use transitional from the start. The problem we have now is that if you change the doctype from strict to transitional, there are some rendering differences that will result. This would mean that some users would see changes on their sites they weren't expecting (in certain browsers).

There is detailed information about which browsers see a difference between strict and transitional here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirks_mode

It might turn out that changing it would have little effect in practice, however proving that would be considerably costly for us as it would need us to test against a large sample of our user's sites.

An easier fix for us (in terms of time spent) would be for us to introduce an advanced option that let you choose your doctype. We could consider this if enough people asked for the feature, or if enough widgets people wanted to use needed specific doctypes.

Thanks for pointing this issue out.
Photo of Nathan

Nathan, Champion

  • 3739 Posts
  • 307 Reply Likes
Hi the_pete,

That would be great if we could pick which doctype we would like to use.

Thanks,
Nathan
Photo of Daniel Harris

Daniel Harris

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hi I know this was discussed some time ago, however i would also like to use more HTML5 and change the doctype, You meantioned an advanced feature allowing members to select, was this developed?

if not is their anyway around this?
Photo of Laura Thomas

Laura Thomas

  • 4536 Posts
  • 211 Reply Likes
Hi Daniel,

This feature was not developed due to lack of demand. There is no current workaround that I'm aware of but we'll continue to consider this feature if more people are interested in it.