W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: HTML 4.x or XHTML for accessibility

From: Alan Chuter <achuter@teleservicios.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:39:48 +0200
To: "Simon White" <simon.white@jkd.co.uk>, "jonathan chetwynd" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, "WAI List \(E-mail\)" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AEEAKFMNAPGNPNKPCKJKCEMLCAAA.achuter@teleservicios.com>

One of the advantages of XHTML must be that imposes some discipline in the
spaghetti code chaos of real HTML. This makes it easier to create new
applications to read it, amongst which may be assistive technologies.

Another advantage is that as it is valid XML it can be readily transformed
into other markup languages and formats using XSL transformations.

regards

Alan Chuter

achuter@teleservicios.com
Fundosa Teleservicios (ONCE Foundation), Madrid, Spain
ONCE (Spanish National Organisation of the Blind)


-----Mensaje original-----
De: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]En
nombre de Simon White
Enviado el: martes, 18 de junio de 2002 10:21
Para: jonathan chetwynd; WAI List (E-mail)
Asunto: RE: HTML 4.x or XHTML for accessibility



Code with errors, surely you jest!

In all seriousness, I am creating a bespoke set of checkpoints for a company
and I have at the top this: validate your code to standards. Validate again.

Is there any reason why the need for valid code is not contained within the
WCAG, especially as Jonathan has rightly pointed out that incorrect markup
will not be rendered correctly, if at all...

thanks anyway Jonathan for the answer, I had a thought that XHTML would be
better, but I thought that someone else could clarify the position for me as
I don't like getting things wrong.

Kind regards to all
Simon

-----Original Message-----
From: jonathan chetwynd [mailto:j.chetwynd@btinternet.com]
Sent: 18 June 2002 09:16
To: Simon White; WAI List (E-mail)
Subject: Re: HTML 4.x or XHTML for accessibility


my answers are never very authoritative, however i imagine that in an ideal
world xhtml will be more accessible, as xml is the future, and xhtml is a
step in the direction of xml.

My most serious concern regarding xhtml, and xml (and this future), is that
code that has errors will not be rendered, try amaya.
This is bl*** awful for anyone with dyslexia, learning difficulties, DTs,
typos or other problems, as most would I think prefer some page rather than
no page.

thanks

jonathan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon White" <simon.white@jkd.co.uk>
To: "WAI List (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:00 AM
Subject: HTML 4.x or XHTML for accessibility


>
> Hello all,
> I have a rather interesting question to pose, and it is one that I cannot
seem to find a definitive answer for. Can anyone on the list provide me with
some help with the following question?
>
> Which is best for accessibility: HTML 4.x or XHTML standards?
>
> IF anyone knows if there is an answer to this then is it also possible to
scour everyone's brains for reasons why one is preferred above another.
>
> Thank you in anticipation
>
> Simon
>
> ---
> Simon White
> Business Solutions
> JKD
> Westminster Business Square
> 1-45 Durham Street
> London
> SE11 5JH
> Tel:  020 7793 9399
> Fax: 020 7793 9299
> URL:  www.jkd.co.uk
> ---
>
>
> James Kelsey Design Ltd (JKD) or The Incepta Group plc and its subsidiary
companies may not be held responsible for the content of this email as it
may reflect the personal view of the sender and not that of the company. JKD
run anti virus software on all servers and all workstations, they can not be
held responsible for any infected files that you may receive. JKD advises
all recipients to virus scan any file attachments.
>
>
>



_____________________________________________________________________
VirusChecked by the Incepta Group plc
_____________________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 04:42:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:05 GMT