Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 6237263
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 24, 20262026-05-24T10:59:46+00:00 2026-05-24T10:59:46+00:00

Currently we have the following DOC type: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 TRANSITIONAL//EN>

  • 0

Currently we have the following DOC type:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 TRANSITIONAL//EN">

There are some initiatives to change to the following DOC type:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN"  >

The argument is for the enforcement of strict W3C standards for cross browser compatibility, my question is, if we adopt the new DOC type,

  1. without changing parts of the codes that are still in the 4.0.1 HTML definition to XHTML 1.0 definition, will it be of any use?

  2. will changing to the new DOC type definition cause my existing JSP / HTML to break (suppose those that conform to 4.0.1 perfectly but not tested against 1.0 XHTML)?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-24T10:59:46+00:00Added an answer on May 24, 2026 at 10:59 am

    I’ll assume that you actually mean the following as the new doctype:

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

    Functionally, your JSP/HTML will not break. The modern webbrowser is forgiving enough and it’ll close open tags where needed and it’ll accept unspecified attributes. In the meanwhile you should however really consider to fix them anyway so that it w3-validates against the new doctype as much as possible.

    However, major problems may arise in look’n’feel as specified by CSS. Your old doctype pushes the the browser in quirksmode which reveals among others the pretty serious box model bug in MSIE. With this bug, MSIE accounts the element’s padding and border into element’s width. So if you change this doctype, you’ll only see changes in MSIE.

    If your website was designed on normal webbrowsers according the web standards (i.e., it’s been designed for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, etc), then you don’t need to worry. It’ll only going to look like in MSIE as intented, which is just an advantage.

    But if your website was designed for MSIE and hereby thus ignoring the webstandards, then you’ll have to make a lot of changes in CSS (mainly width/padding/border/margin) so that it look the same in MSIE as intented. You’ll also gain the additional advantage that it will now look properly on normal browsers.

    As to the doctype choice, well this is going to be subjective, but if you need my opinion, then read the following answers:

    • Should I start with HTML or XHTML?
    • Is it possible to use JSF+Facelets with HTML 4/5?
    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have the following code: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd> <html
I currently have the following MySQL statement to replace the HTML entity for a
Some people have told me that the following code is bad for HTML validation:
I have the following HTML. Currently it relies on the user hitting the 'Go'
I currently have the following html which does not show the ordered list properly
I have the following html code <!DOCTYPE html> <html lang=en> <head> <meta name=viewport content=width=device-width;
I currently have the following CSS for my 4 columns which might grow to
I currently have the following row in my table: course_data: user_id days <-- This
I currently have the following objects persisting successfully: Person first name, etc. Exams title,
I currently have the following js code function clearMulti(option) { var i; var select

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.