W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2001

3 further points Re: browsers and xhtml

From: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 15:28:07 +0100
Message-ID: <010b01c142a9$a20928a0$5c8d7bd5@btopenworld.com>
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Charles I'm well aware of the very xhtml ish natureof my previous post.

However surely it is an accessibility issue, if we are being 'sold' a new
'strict' language.
It may have many benefits(1), ease of implementation appears not to be one
of them.
html is very forgiving, and it is important that we consider any new
language in that light.

It is a more serious problem, if this:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">

can mean that a page is not rendered(2), when with <html> it is.

The above certainly would turn off(3) most potential web page authors,
looking at the source code for the first time.
Is it a temporary measure until (xhtml) suffices?

I'd like to add that(4):
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
is rendered on the screen of my pda running windowsCE 1.0

thanks again

jonathan chetwynd
IT teacher (LDD)
j.chetwynd@btinternet.com
http://www.peepo.com         "The first and still the best picture directory
on the web"
Received on Friday, 21 September 2001 10:55:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:56 GMT