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: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 01:20:47 -0800
Message-ID: <3C21AD6F.60801@munat.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Good question. On checking the W3C's HTML page, I see that the newest 
version does not mention which type of HTML is recommended. So I went 
back into the archives because I do remember XHTML 1.0 being 
recommended. I found such a page here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20001215162200/http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/

Evidently the page changed sometime around the time that XHTML 1.1 was 
released. It is not clear now (on a brief reading of their page) exactly 
what they are recommending. Still, I think it is a safe assumption that 
they do not intend XHTML 1.1 and 2.0 to be used solely on intranets. And 
I doubt that they've released them now assuming that the recommendations 
would just sit around for a few years until browsers caught up. In fact, 
there don't seem to be any clear and obvious warnings against using 
XHTML 1.1 (or 1.0 Strict).

But this is really beside the point. You still haven't explained what 
specific accessibility problems result from using XHTML 1.1. Since I'm 
using 1.1 on my current sites, I really need to know this information. 
Can you provide it?

Thanks again.
Chas.

Kynn Bartlett wrote:

> At 12:36 AM -0800 12/20/01, Charles F. Munat wrote:
>
>> You've said that we should not use the latest XHTML. The W3C is 
>> recommending that we do.
>
>
> Where are they recommending that we do?
>
> --Kynn
>
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2001 04:19:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:59 GMT