XHTML Strict and CSS Vs XHTML Transitional

[Fat Tom]

I need to know what the advantages of using the former over the latter are.
It's a page long exam answer I am preparing for and lecturer notes aren't efficient.
If anyone could inform me as to the perceived benefits of XHTML Strict over XHTML Transitional I'd really appreciate it thank you.

[CornedBee]

The benefits? Errm...

This is a very complicated issue. Strictly speaking (pun not intended), Transitional can do everything Strict can do, and more. Strict does not, for example, have the target attribute on links that allows targetting of specific frames. Strict does not have quite a few element, such as the iframe tag.

Strict is a return to the roots of HTML: the description of the meaning of content. (As such, I'm rather surprised that the <i> and <b> tags stayed in. Whatever.) Strict is not about the presentation of this content - that's what CSS is for. Strict is a claim on your side that your markup is entirely about the semantics of the content. As such, using Strict implies, but does not formally specify, that you won't use tables for layout, for example.

Using Strict slightly helps you to test for these criteria, but only slightly. It only alerts you to usage of removed elements or attributes.

In the end, it's a matter of taste. If you feel the need to have presentational markup, use Transitional. If you don't feel this need, use Strict.

There is one more very important difference: Transitional triggers Almost Standards Mode in Gecko-based browsers. This mode differs from full Standards Mode only in the way line height is calculated, but can severely affect the placement of images.