W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-evangelist@w3.org > May 2005

Re: Valid XML

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 11:16:54 +0100
Message-ID: <024901c55d25$0beea710$0200000a@Snufkin>
To: <public-evangelist@w3.org>

From: "Patrick Lauke" <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>
>> Jim Ley
>But, to play devil's advocate: doesn't that reinforce the whole
>original point even more?

I believe it does yes, XHTML 1.1 is no less supported in current user agents 
than XHTML 1.0, therefore if you believe that XHTML 1.0 is supported then 
you also have to believe that XHTML 1.1 is, so WCAG 11.1 says _use the 
latest specification where supported_  so either XHTML 1.0 is supported 
enough to be used, in which case so is XHTML 1.1, or it's not, in which case 
neither are appropriate.

>  (and any sites opting to go with compatible XHTML 1.0
>or higher are going one step further than what WCAG 1.0 is requiring
>them to do)?

XHTML 1.0 is not a later version of HTML 4.01 - Nowhere in WCAG 11.1 (or 
anywhere else in WCAG) recommends makes you decide a particular technology, 
you can choose XHTML or HTML, if you choose either 11.1 says to use the 
latest supported, that is either 4.01 in the case HTML, or 1.1 in the case 
of XHTML, if you choose XHTML, you use 1.1, it's equally as supported as 
XHTML 1.0.

As to the compatibility guidelines, they're a joke which not even the W3 
decides to bother with on their own homepage, and the HTML WG has left open 
issues against for more years than I have mail archives for - resulting in 
the W3's own homepage begining with untelligible gobbledygook on at least 
one of the most modern browsers available for one of the platforms I have in 
this room.  (C.1 and C.14 both ignored, C1 causing the problem.)

Jim. 
Received on Friday, 20 May 2005 10:17:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:19 UTC