Strict vs Transitional

[10010110]

If I may chime in: What’s the problem to just change the doctype in your templates? Those two words aren’t a big deal, are they?

Despite that I’d like to use XHTML strict as well but all the popular WYSIWYG editors are producing deprecated and invalid code (like , , etc.) and I just have to use transitional. Why can’t those programmers just correct those “bugs”? 

And I think it’s impractical to run your pages in quirks mode… OK, with simple layouts it might work but if it’s getting more complex IE is always making problems…

[stopsatgreen]

What’s the problem to just change the doctype in your templates? Those two words aren’t a big deal, are they?

As I've responded above already, it's not just changing the doctype; by default, CMSMS outputs meta tags with a closing slash on the end, which makes them invalid for the HTML doctype. And yes, you can then hack another line which stops the closing slashes; but my point was: wouldn't this be easier if we could just choose it as an option rather than having to hack the templates? It's not a big deal, I'm not putting any kind of priority on it, I just think it would be nice and convenient.