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

Re: Valid XML

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 13:49:49 -0400
Message-Id: <BD11B91A-E92F-410B-8E42-1D6D372ED4B0@w3.org>
To: "'public-evangelist@w3.org' w3. org" <public-evangelist@w3.org>

Ok some interesting comments:

* About XHTML 1.0 and Authoring tools

Le 05-05-19 à 17:52, Patrick H. Lauke a écrit :
> WYSIWYG tools, or even "out of the box" textarea enhancements (when  
> talking about CMSs) which do not understand it, and stubbornly  
> output something that couldn't even be classed as valid HTML 4...

So it's not a problem of XHTML 1.0 but a problem of Authoring tools  
implementations. Implementation of DOM or Javascript. And you are  
saying it's not only XHTML but HTML 4.01 too. So unrelated to the  
specific "XHTML 1.0"


* About valid HTML 4.01 versus XHTML 1.0

Le 05-05-19 à 18:59, Jim Ley a écrit :
> Lots, most of the invalid HTML content doesn't have a doctype of  
> any variety, and valid sites such as microsoft.com and others take  
> HTML 4.01, in fact most valid major corporate sites other than  
> W3.org seem to choose HTML 4.01 varieties

We are talking about Web sites which have a doctype in their pages:
I have no statistics. So for now I'm unable to assert the same thing  
than you.
     - Given a random sample of HTML 4.01 pages, how many are valid -> %
     - Given a random sample of XHTML 1.0 pages, how many are valid -> %

Interesting though that the _Home page_ of MS is Valid "HTML 4.0"
     http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.microsoft.com%2F
But for example, the page of Windows is not valid "HTML 4.01"  
Transitional.
     http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.microsoft.com% 
2Fwindows%2Fdefault.mspx


* About Conformance of User Agents to XHTML 1.0

>> We are not in a position where it's a failure, I would say it's  
>> more  a kind of "using it my own way"
>>
>
> But there are very specific conformance requirements?  but my  
> problems aren't about the authors of content ignoring  
> specifications, it's about the authors of User Agents ignoring them  
> - the XML conformance rules being the ones in question, no-one ever  
> attempted to help me with any arguments to explain that?  Is it  
> really that indefensible?

So you are talking about "XHTML 1.0" served as "application/xhtml+xml"
Some User agents can't display such a document. Agreed.
You have the right to send "XHTML 1.0" as text/html. An improvement  
of implementation would be indeed great.

>> What are the problems of XHTML 1.0 which makes it impossible to  
>> use  in your Web site?
>
> WCAG says to use the latest version of a specification, so if XHTML  
> was relevant,

     Please, each time use the version number of the specification  
you are talking about. :)

> as accessibility is important XHTML 1.1 would be the one I'd chose,  
> of the UA's that support XHTML 1.1, all of them either also support  
> HTML 4.01, or have proxies in front of them to make it the case  
> that they do, because of that there's simply no economic or  
> practical reason to offer both XHTML 1.1 and HTML 4.01 content  
> simultaneously, I should just offer HTML 4.01 to everybody since no- 
> one is harmed.

Here you are stressing out a problem of
     - WCAG 1.0
     - Implementation of XML 1.0 in browsers.

not XHTML 1.0

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-20041119/
     I don't see such requirements in WCAG 2.0 WD.


> The XHTML user agents are also extremely weak - lack of incremental  
> rendering, bugs which cause valid documents to be marked invalid  
> and error messages that only make sense to web-geeks displayed.

What is an "XHTML User Agent"?
Which kind of XHTML 1.0 valid documents are "marked" invalid and  
displays not understandable  error messages?

> Why do you feel the need to ignore WCAG 1 - 11.1 ?

     I don't feel the need to ignore WCAG 1.0, we were talking about  
"XHTML 1.0"

> Or do you feel that XHTML 1.1 is not currently supported?

     Again, not talking about "XHTML 1.1"

> By my understanding Mozilla, Opera, Safari, Konqueror, IceBrowser  
> and huge numbers of mobile browsers all support XHTML 1.1, indeed I  
> cannot think of a user agent that supports XHTML 1.0 that does not  
> also support XHTML 1.1.

a) XHTML 1.1 application/xhtml+xml
b) XHTML 1.0 application/xhtml+xml
c) XHTML 1.0 text/html

Do you mean you don't know any user agents which does a) correctly  
and not b) correctly?
So you are saying some user agents are unable to do a) and b)

Do you know a user agent which is unable to do c) ?


-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Friday, 20 May 2005 17:49:56 UTC

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