Re: Against (current) test 48 (document's language)

> 3. The HTML Techniques and the HTML test suite cover HTML and XHTML 1.0, 
> as mentioned in the Abstract, not e.g. XHTML 1.1, XHTML Basic 1.0 or even 
> XHTML 2.0, although, the procedure for test 48 mentions "XHTML 1.1 or 
> higher". So either the test suite is about HTML, XHTML 1.0 and upwards, 
> then the procedure should be rephrased to "4. If the content is XHTML 
> based on XHTML modularization ..." (which would include XHTML Basic 1.0), 
> or the fourth item should be removed.
>
I assumed that the techniques and test suite would cover html and xhtml and 
other versions of these technologies that were similar. I also assumed that 
xhtml basic was sufficiently similar that it could be grouped together with 
the other markup languages.

The exclusion of the lang attribute from the html element in xhtml basic 
seems like a minor point. However there may be major differences which would 
require a separate set of techniques and test suite for xhtml basic. Has 
anyone looked at the differences, in terms of accessibility, between xhtml 
basic and other versions of xhtml?

Cheers,
Chris