Coding for XHTML transitional isn’t the ‘correct’ thing to do anyway. Whether you’re using HTML or XHTML strict is the correct way to do it, and ‘transitional’ is ONLY suppose to be used for what it says, transitioning. you’re not suppose to develop for it. it almost defeats the purpose of validation.
I understand the politically correct sentiment, but I think that’s a rule bucket that doesn’t hold much water. Whether it’s called “transitional” or whatever is of little concern. What’s important is how the code looks in given browsers, and how consistent it is to develop. That’s where XHTML Strict has major problems, especially with all the flavors of MSIE. HTML 4.x code is just a mess anyway, especially for those of us with CDO (obsessive compulsive disorder; alphabetized, the way it should be).
A few years ago, after having walked through months of testing various versions of HTML and XHTML code in various browsers, I came to the conclusion that the most effective ‘standard’ to work toward would be XHTML 1.0 Transitional. The code is clean, tidy, neat, consistent, plays nice with CSS, renders quite well in most browsers (with MSIE still the Problematic King™), and should last for a few years. XHTML 1.0 Strict has rendering problems in major browsers. HTML 4.x is a coding nightmare and long overdue for some real body work, hence HTML 5.0, which, as I understand it, has W3C support, but from what I’ve seen, browser rendering remains a problem, which is the major buggaboo of all HTML/XHTML/CSS anyway. The defacto standard for page rendering any code is whatever Microsoft deems it to be, and from MSIE 5.x to 6.x to 7.x and now to 8.0, even Microsoft can’t make it consistent.