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

Re: Updated Bobby

From: Charles F. Munat <chas@munat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:24:41 -0800
Message-ID: <3C20DB69.2020902@munat.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

Kynn Bartlett wrote:

> In general, you should only use XHTML _without_ following the HTML
> compatability rules if you know that every browser accessing the
> service will understand "native" XHTML.  There are few browsers which
> do this and even fewer ATs (if any), so native XHTML 1.0 is not
> recommended.  (Nor is XHTML 1.1 for that matter.)

Chas. replies:

Can you give me specific accessibility problems caused by switching to 
xml:lang? On what browser or AT does the lang attribute make a 
difference? In fact, can you give us a specific list of which 
browsers/ATs have problems with which XHTML elements/attributes and how 
this affects accessibility? Why is XHTML strict or 1.1 a problem for 
accessibility? Specifics please.

Also, with the exception of the xml:lang attribute, what is in "native" 
XHTML that isn't in "native" HTML? What part of "native" XHTML isn't 
understood by browsers/ATs?


Charles F. Munat
Seattle, Washington
Received on Wednesday, 19 December 2001 13:23:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:15 UTC