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

Re: Valid XML

From: Pid <webmaster@neutralgrey.net>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 23:37:05 +0100
Message-ID: <428E6691.5080907@neutralgrey.net>
To: "'public-evangelist@w3.org'" <public-evangelist@w3.org>

Nice.

I'm losing the will to live, just thinking about content types.
This was seriously at risk of becoming a badly formatted rant*.

As it is, the thread has already become a clinical examination of 
contributors statements, rather than something more productive.

It's well established that the popular UA's handle XHTML badly, in some 
way or other.

Until 90% of browsers out there can properly handle XHTML 1.1, (or 
higher), we have to recognise that we are in an extended period of 
transition, the termination of which is largely dependant on Microsoft.

We have to be pragmatic and accept that the 1.0 Transitional and Strict 
specs are about educating people, and getting them into good habits for 
the future. Which, I rather thought, was the point of this mailing list.


Pid




*See my earlier proposal for RML.

Karl Dubost wrote:

>
> Jim,
>
> :)
>
> Small story:
> Jim, you are waking up in the morning, you are maybe taking a coffee.  
> Your cup is falling over you and you have coffee all over you. Should  
> I kill Jim Ley, Should I suppress the cup? Should I not try to drink  
> coffee in the morning because I'm clumsy. :)
>
> There are certainly plenty of solutions, there is no perfect world.
>
> The small story is just to express. There will always be problems and  
> I will not argue against that. Take it granted that. There will  
> always be
>
>     - incompatibilities
>     - conflict between specifications
>     - conflict of interests
>     - bad implementations
>     - good and bad professionals
>
> The work which has been done for QA Specification Guidelines [1] is  
> one part of this  attempt to improve things. Björn has, for example  
> by his participation, showed very interesting problems (normative  
> references). He has sometimes maybe too strict opinions, but I really  
> appreciate his abilities for identifying nasty issues.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-qaframe-spec-20050428/
>
> So Jim and others, if your point is to say: W3C is not perfect and  
> there are issues in specifications. I will reply yes to both and I  
> will add it will always be the case.
>
> This understood let's move forward.
>
> Le 05-05-20 ā 14:16, Jim Ley a écrit :
>
>> Bjoern was just asking for similar help with XHTML guidelines.   
>> Arguments seem rather thin on the ground other than "well it works  
>> in both browsers so all is okay" which is something I can't agree  with.
>
>
> :) It's where we have a strong disagreement. I'm not living in a  
> mathematical universe with everything predictable. So yes I wish for  
> more quality, for better implementations, but if you think, we will  
> achieve perfection, I can answer you right now, that it will never  
> happen.
>
>> For example I'm embarrassed that I can't show the W3's homepage on  
>> my pocket device, and I'm not embarrassed for it, it doesn't claim  
>> to render XHTML, the W3's own XHTML Appendix C guidelines state it  
>> won't be shown correctly.
>
>
> I'm not embarrassed at all if it's not displayed correctly on some  
> devices. I could be embarrassed if it was a software I was writing  
> myself and was claiming it to be perfect.
> It would be like Greenpeace being embarrassed because someone is  
> doing the wrong thing. We can try to explain, do do outreach, we can  
> pursue the desires of helping people, but we will not save the world  
> or stop the war :)
>
>>> You have the right to send "XHTML 1.0" as text/html.
>>
>>
>> You only have the right if you follow the Appendix C.  Guidelines,  
>> they are _not_ being followed by the W3 themselves,  so are you  
>> saying the W3 homepage is wrong here?  Or are you saying something  
>> else?
>
>
> :) Hehe. What you are looking for is a statement to pinpoint and say  
> "Look! look! be ashamed".  I can answer if you really want:
>     - W3C Home Page is wrong
>     - Appendix C. is wrong
>     - I am wrong
>     - etc :)))
>
> *grin* I'm not sure it will achieve anything in the end or we will  
> not make any progress. It's not a question of black and white, or 0  
> and 1. At least, I do cherish when we are able to validate a  
> document, to check that it has been used with conformance, etc. I  
> cherish even more when we had successfully convinced someone to  
> improve, fix an implementation, when we have found the good strategy  
> for more interoperability.
> But again a perfect world will never exist. If it's what you are  
> looking for, I will not be able to answer.
>
>
>> I'm not stressing on any problem, I was asking a simple question  
>> about WCAG 1.0, and why it's appropriate to ignore the  
>> specificaition?  I don't think it's appropriate to.
>
>
> *I* (Karl Dubost) would say that it's a dependency bug with normative  
> references. An issue that Bjoern has raised for many specifications  
> and I'm very grateful, he pushed the QA WG to include that in the QA  
> Specification Guidelines.
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-qaframe-spec-20050428/#ref-define-practice
> Good Practice 08: When imposing requirements by normative references,  
> address conformance dependencies.
>
> I don't know if an issue has been sent to the WCAG WG, and if they  
> think that it should be included in the erratas.
>     http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WAI-WEBCONTENT-ERRATA
>
> Have you asked them? What did they answer?
>
>
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-20041119/
>>>     I don't see such requirements in WCAG 2.0 WD.
>>
>>
>> That is a working draft, and has not been reviewed by a great many  
>> people, I think due to the poor responsiveness of W3 working groups  
>> whereby issues are only ever addressed at last call, many people,  
>> including myself, don't waste our time reviewing working drafts, I  
>> realise this isn't a good thing, but many year old issues against  
>> specifications just don't encourage it.
>
>
> Hehe :) Imagine what I do every days ;)
> The reason why I was pointing the new document is because it seems  
> they fixed that, so they might be aware of such issue.
>
> About Issues not fixed:
>
>     This is trickier, because it involves people, social contracts,  
> process, etc. All these small pieces of dust which stick everywhere  
> along the life.
>     - Karl Dubost might have an opinion different from Jim Ley.  Björn 
> might have a third opinion incompatible with the two first,  etc. At a 
> point we will need to find a solution, and there might be  still 
> disagreement. It's the result of collective discussion as we  exactly 
> do now.
>     - There are also questions of time, resources, economical  
> reasons, etc. Many things which are making our life difficult every  
> day at work or in our personal life. W3C is not an absolute entity,  
> it's an organization with people and resources constraints.
>
>     For example, now, I have many things to do, and you certainly  
> have, but we took the time to answer more than doing other things  
> like reviewing another specification for me to try to identify  
> errors, but I'm just human and I might miss some ;)
>
>>> What is an "XHTML User Agent"?
>>
>>
>> A user agent which claims to render XHTML - most XHTML user agents  
>> will also render a great many other content-types.
>
>
> :)  More precisely.
> An "XHTML 1.0 User Agent" is
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xhtml1-20020801/#uaconf
>
> And an "XHTML 1.1 User Agent" is
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml11-20010531/conformance.html#uaconf
> Then
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410/ 
> conformance.html#s_conform_user_agent
>
> I'm not sure someone can claim to have a conformant XHTML 1.0 or  
> XHTML 1.1 user agent. But that would be interesting to show if time.
>
>
>>> 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)
>>>
>>
>> No, I'm saying that all that do b), also do a) - so XHTML 1.1 is as  
>> supported as XHTML 1.0
>
>
> for application/xhtml+xml, yes :)
> Well I have plenty of other issues on HTML 4.01 and then XHTML 1.0 ;)  
> but on this particular mime type aspect yes.
>
>
>>> Do you know a user agent which is unable to do c) ?
>>
>>
>> Yes, Internet Explorer 6.0, I gave the file (with corrections) in  
>> the previous example.
>
>
> So you are saying that IE 6.0 doesn't display (render) XHTML 1.0  
> served as text/html ?
>
>

-- 



pid@neutralgrey.net

ng m: (+44|0)7976 411939
ng w: www.neutralgrey.net

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is copyright (c)2005 neutral grey ltd
reg. in england: co.no.04927018

This message is intended only for the use of the individuals to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmission in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmission is prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message and all of its attachments.
Received on Friday, 20 May 2005 22:37:07 UTC

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