The World’s Best HTML Template
Post from April 29, 2008 (↻ July 2, 2015), reflecting Jens the Developer.
…to start with is this, until the rise of HTML 5:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"> <html lang="@1"> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <title>@2</title> <link rel="stylesheet" href="@3"> <p>@4
This holds true as long as you want your pages to be distributable offline as well, which has been the only reason to include the
html start tag, its
lang attribute, and a
meta element with encoding information.
The template is available for download; above, @n designates parts to be modified, though these are complemented by some documentation I had to append due to my blog software’s code reformatting rules. Many things have been implied, but don’t hesitate to call me out on them.
Update (May 4, 2008)
Since there seems to be some confusion about this post and why this template is supposed to be the “best”, here’s the short explanation: For a general template to be “best,” it should work in as many scenarios as possible without requiring modifications, its code should be elegant (and valid) and help maintainability.
Even when people don’t worry about specific problems with Conditional Comments, reset style sheets, or heavyweight frameworks, the simple approaches help quality. In general, most templates and frameworks are just too much, inducing maintainability and performance problems. The template above that is so disappointing for some avoids that—and hence it’s so minimal.
Update (May 26, 2008)
Now there is also a similarly valid HTML 5 version of the template. When you’re sure that it’s only used online and your server is configured properly, omit both
html start tag and encoding definition as well to save additional bytes.
About the Author
If you have any questions or concerns about what he writes, ask him to explain, or share your own position by sending a constructive comment or email. (Then, if you think something could be of interest to Jens, recommendations for excellent literature are always welcome.)
On April 29, 2008, 23:45 CEST, Sminky said:
What would be different in HTML5? And why is that any better than XHTML? This template is looking clean I must admit.
I think you need to close your elements. For example:
<link … />
<meta … />
And though you have it fixed in the download, your snippit in this article needs head and body tags.
Jens, I agree with Bill, you should at least close your tags and include the HEAD and BODY tags. As it is this is very far from being the World’s Best HTML Template
Beautiful. This IS the best template because it is what you need. Just basic minimal structure, with a 100% guarantee that it is needed. Unlike the rest of all those templates that clutter your site with crao nobody ever needs.
It is however, probably too much to understand for developers just discovering all hyped XHTML
On May 4, 2008, 11:05 CEST, David said:
For framework lovers it’s crap, for anyone else it’s good - if they can’t easily create it themselves. Good point however.
But would it be accessible? It certainly passes guidelines from the point of view of code validation and using CSS for layout, but it would probably fail the checkpoint about structuring content with headings (I say probably only because it could be argued that say a one paragraph website may not need a heading at all).
On July 26, 2008, 14:48 CEST, Bryan said:
I am looking for the “Worlds Best HTML Template” to download but cannot find it.
Can you please tell me how I can find the link to download? I am assuming that it resembles the page I am reading as I REALLY LOVE this pages layout.
Does it have a backend manager for the comments? Can I use Captcha on it?
Pleas elet me know I just have to have it!
Thank you and kind regards,
On August 21, 2008, 13:27 CEST, Drenthe said:
I think this won’t be xhtml valid…
On December 8, 2008, 23:45 CET, miryam said:
thanks for the template, about the language codes, if our site is done in english and lets say spanish, the code can have both languages?
On December 9, 2008, 13:19 CET, Stu said:
Hello, I have a question about the doctype.
Its seems to be kind of incomplete, even if I know it validates. I wonder why it does that without the url at the end. On w3.org i only find “complete” doctypes.
Some people say modern browsers would render a document in quirks-mode if the url is missing but Firefox 3.0.4 claims in his infowindow for your template: “standartconforming-mode”.
Thanks if you could explain it to me.
I am absolute fascinated by the behavior of building a complete DOM out of an “incomplete” html-source. I like its cleverness. I would love to use a shorter doctype, because I hate that thing at all. The HTML5 one looks much more elegant.