I just launched a new tutorial site, and the default software that I purchased to streamline it spits out 'unsemantic' markup. I intentionally launched the site early, because I was planning on writing an article on the process of changing over to a W3C validated website.

The big question : Do I go XHTML or HTML 4.01 strict / loose? A few explanations with your thoughts would be great. I do have the ability to go any of the listed routes, although working with XHTML would probably require more time to come up with a suitable 'look' - that would be similar to one I have now.

Thank you!

There isn't that much of a difference between xhtml and plain old html. Your code is pretty much set up for the move to xhtml. The <BR \> tags should be <br />. No uppercase and the appropriate slash. Your meta information as well as your images need to be closed with a space and "/" as well. I didn't spend too much time looking through all of your code to see what you would have to change but i'm sure it wouldn't be difficult and you wouldn't have to sacrifice your current design. After you find and change all the small details, you could place a doctype on your page and then see if it doesn't validate. If it doesn't, the w3c validator will give you suggestions on what to fix. You could make the transition fairly quick, i think (depending on how many pages you would have to alter.)

In addition, as far as which way to go, i think a lot of people would tell you xhtml for the simple reason that it is a current standard. But, some would say that xhtml is just a fad and that people have been brainwashed to believe they should be creating valid xhtml. I am, now, use to coding xhtml. So, without any other reason beyond "it's what i know", i would say make the transition to the "X."

Good points Ape

I did xhtml 1.0 like you said because its now.

I wanted something to look good and I like the fact that it gives me a cool validation icon for my site.

I am new to all of this, so I am like a complete newbie. But with the little html that I am learning, I like th xhtml

As The Ape already said, the only real difference between HTML and XHTML is within its structure and means that all tags need to be written lowercase and need to have a closing tag - if there is no need for a closing tag, the opening tag itself must be closed by appending a slash (eg: <br/>).

<!-- These are all valid in HTML, but not in XHTML -->
foo<P>bar
foo<p>bar

<!-- XHTML counterpart -->
foo<p>bar</p>
for<p/>bar

All the other differences are about allowed/disallowed tags respectively their attributes. My recommendation would be to go with XHTML 1.0 Strict or already even with XHTML 1.1.

Thanks for the great input so far!

I should clarify a bit - I understand the differences between HTML and XHTML, and how the validation process works. I was more interested in your thoughts on the differences and the benefits that you feel may not be apparent on the surface.

a lot of people would tell you xhtml for the simple reason that it is a current standard

Thanks! (That probably will end up being my reasoning in the end. That and portability for the next few years.) Good feedback Ape.

I'll end up linking this thread after I go ahead and get this done. I am not sure when I'll make the time - I am doing some work for some clients at the moment.

I wanted something to look good and I like the fact that it gives me a cool validation icon for my site.

Found some cool variations of the standard buttons (over 3500 buttons!) in someone's sig on another board.

I'm sorry if i made it seem like i was responding directly to you with my entire reply. I was simply being thorough enough for those who don't know about the validation process. That's a good point actually... remember when you didn't know about standards and validations or even a site (org) called w3c. This is something to consider because there are plenty of sites out there that look like they haven't been updated since 1996, and in most cases haven't. But, they have good keyword / content relationships and maybe good external links. So, to them, standards mean absolutely nothing. I'm saying all of this because you mentioned "portability." If the things we are doing today can still be valid (or at least functional) in 10 years, then what is the point of progressing? I'll tell you... browsers and language integration. We simply have a big stew of everything at this point and we are slowing removing the stuff that doesn't help (or could be implemented some other way.) Good example... the font tag, and soon to be... tables. Sad thing... we really don't have control over any of this, unless we work for Steve, Bill, or the w3c.
By the way, thanks for the link to the buttons. Very cool!

Right now IE's XHTML support is shakey, so I would stick with transitional or just HTML until IE 7.

Most people still use IE (to my never ending frusteration) , so that should be your first priority at this point for coding.