Why is the SMF 2.0 DOCTYPE transitional rather than strict?

[rexusdiablos]

Is there a reason for this? I want the rest of my site to mirror my forum as much as possible but I'd like to know if there's a valid reason for using transitional?

Also, though of lesser importance, why isn't the XHTML version 1.1 rather than 1.0?

[rexusdiablos]

I've read that XHTML is really not recommended for beginner programmers because it's affects parsing and can really mess up dynamic page if you don't know what you're doing. Should I sidestep it and stick with HTML?

Source: http://friendlybit.com/html/why-xhtml-is-a-bad-idea/

[Nick Whetstone]

Strict is, well, strict. In Transitional, there are some "shortcuts" (such as the align attributes), as well as certain tags, such as the iframe. But in Strict, these are not valid. Plus, the nesting of tags is set up differently. Now, I could be wrong, but I believe SMF uses the Transitional DTD for those who prefer to use these shortcuts and those who ONLY know how to achieve want using the shortcuts. As it is open source, it is often heavily modified, and using a Transitional DTD allows for more coders to have valid pages. Again, I could be wrong, but I believe that is why...

For more info on things removed from the Strict DTD, look here:
http://www.zvon.org/xxl/xhtmlReference/Output/comparison.html

[rexusdiablos]

Now, I could be wrong, but I believe SMF uses the Transitional DTD for those who prefer to use these shortcuts and those who ONLY know how to achieve want using the shortcuts. As it is open source, it is often heavily modified, and using a Transitional DTD allows for more coders to have valid pages.

That makes sense. You're probably right.

Why is SMF 2.0 using XHTML rather then HTML 4.0 though?