Jump to content
Killersites Community

XHTML Strict vs Transitional Performance

Recommended Posts

Again, I don't believe it would affect anything, or the difference is so small the difference would be negligible. The things that affect page load are things like image size, amount of code in the page, javascript, server side scripting, the server, etc...

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

also, allowing the cache to maintain your external css file and js files, reducing http calls to other locations.

Edited by jlhaslip

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest danidallia123

In strict you're not allowed to use attributes that can be used in CSS.



<div align="center">



<div style="text-align: center;">


There may and probally is more to the difference between strict and transitional


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no performance difference worth noting as stated above. But there are other issues to consider when deciding between HTML and XHTML which will have more effect on your pages.


The following is the other things to consider with XHTML, if you really really wanted to know only about the performance, you need not read on... I just have not been on my soapbox lately, it got dusty. rolleyes.gif




Transitional is a temporary fix, it allows for mistakes for those designers moving from one language to the next, HTML 3 to HTML 4 or HTML to XHTML. The accent is on "temporary", iot was not meant for people to use years later.


The one and only correct DOCTYPEs are Strict & Frames. Of course Frames are gone with HTML 4, HTML 5 will not have them and XHTML does not have them.


XHTML 1.0 supports Transitional for some reason. XHTML 1.1 and 2.0 do not support Transitional, they must be written is strict as there are no more Doctypes, everything defaults to strict.


If you have plans on being a professional designer, use strict. It shows you as serious as you do things correctly. Strict also better ensures that all user agents and devices will show a web site correctly, transitional is to loose and can cause unexpected differences between user agents.


As far as XHTML and HTML are concerned...


HTML is HTML and the standard, it is correct to use on static/normal sites.


XHTML is an XML language, it is a standard as well but intended for use with XML based languages (not XML data bases, those can be accessed with HTML). IF you make use of MathML for scientific formulas... or serious use of SVG, then you would want to use XHTML.


If you try to use XHTML strict, you have to go by XML rules (not HTML). If you do not use some form of data type deffinition telling the browser to use XML, it will read it as incorrect HTML, so you might as well write correct HTML.


If you do tell the browser to use XML for your XHTML, if you make a mistake the user will see only a red XML error message and are dead in the water, this is especially dangerous on blog sites as any comments can break it as well.


Lastly... IE does not support XHTML (correctly handled as XML), it will try to download the page. M$ IE team has stated they do not intend to support XHTML any time soon.


Above are the answers you requested. The difference is so small you have to have a massive web site to see the difference... like the New York Times or some such super web site.


XHTML was meant to be used only with XML languages like MathML. If you are not using such exotic XML languages, then HTML is what is best suited and what should be used, it is what it is meant to be used.


If you want to understand HTML vs. XHTML see my post above: HTML or XHTML

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now