Ree wrote:which of the two doctypes is actually recommended to use? which one do you use and why? i'm determining which one i should start with. i wouldn't want learning 'bad habits' with transitional and have to move to strict later (which seems to involve a bit of re-learning). or maybe i can stick with transitional, forget strict and be fine? tell your opinion.
i'm leaning towards strict more, but you could change my opinion.

Well, that depends on which version, could be either xhtml or html. It also depends on what you want to accomplish.
Here's my rule of thumb.. I create my layout, and my design. Then I start validating towards html4.01-transitional. Thats my "lowest requirements". Frankly, if the design can't be done and be 100% compliant with 4-transitional, its *not* a webpage, and its *not* an effective design.
If its a site I want to impress with, or that I see an easy path to compliance for it, I try to take it to html4.01-strict.
As a general statement, the problems with xhtml (specifically the problems with its content-type and internet explorer) make it more trouble than it is worth. A html4.01-strict page is generally very accessible across many browsers, and is easy to maintain.
I've done a handful of xhtml pages and sites, for clients that specifically wanted them, or for projects where I wanted to accomplish it.
However, sometimes I want to do some funky effects, layouts, or whatever, and I can't find an easy way to do it in strict. Then I decide between the functionality and the compliance. Usually functionality wins out.
So, to directly answer your question - strict if you can, trans if you can't.