Which DOC type to use?

I have mootools and jquery on my site.

I found putting <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-2"?> in my documents caused one of my scripts to act funny in ie6. Do you recommend that I use the snippet mentioned above?

The advantage of the plugins I mentionned is that they will serve an xml prolog or switch to xml+html only if the browser supports it, which could spare you some headaches

@ram

Totally agree with you! In former times i used to code in XHTML, but after reading this:
http://www.webdevout.net/articles/beware-of-xhtml , i went back to HTML in Version STRICT.

Good coding

I am truly confused now! I want to make sure my website is up to date with standards and seen as a well pieced website... i really have no idea what the best practice is and what to use.

Not much reason to be confused.

If you are already using XHTML happily and it works for your needs, keep doing it. It certainly isn’t harmful!

The argument that some of us are make against XHTML is that due to lack of browser support there are not really many real-world benefits to XHTML over HTML, and rather a lot of drawbacks. That said XHTML has many useful features when used correctly.

Use a strict doctype of some description, write good, clean code and you should be fine whatever.

As long as you don’t need to work with many Ajax libraries like Mootools, HTML doctypes are just fine indeed.

What problems are there with these libraries & HTML?

I have seen a few places in the MooTools docs saying XHTML required, but never had a problem with HTML. A quick search of the MooTools forums just seems to return the answer that as long as the code is clean and you use a strict doctype you should be fine.

Can’t say for jQuery, Scriptaculous etc. as I haven’t used them much.

I tried one of the plugins and it’s caused my pngfix to stop working in IE6 and it’s caused alignment problems with my css in FF. IE 7 seems to work fine which is a shock. I think it’s time to just stick with XHTML 1.0 strict as this seemed to work best for me.