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

RE: HTML 4.x or XHTML for accessibility

From: Nissen, Dan E <Dan.Nissen@UNISYS.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 07:08:31 -0500
Message-ID: <236F133B43F4D211A4B00090273C79DC0C1AF275@us-rv-exch-2.rsvl.unisys.com>
To: "WAI List (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

All,
I enjoy the assumption that all pages are static files that can be checked
before being sent.  Actually, the great value of the Web is dynamic content,
the increasing amount of data that comes from "production databases" like
the official records of agencies, the stock quotes, the auction descriptions
from eBay, the chat rooms, the account statements, ...  And, small errors do
creep in when you write programs (Java Server Pages, Active Server Pages,
...) that retrieve data from elsewhere and make up a page, especially if
there is a hierarchical structure to the data like XML, and that structure
might be controlled by some one typing in a field.  Like, I have been
running some eBay auctions, and they allow me to put in HTML into the
description.  I tried a <BODY> statement to get a background color.  It
looked great on the sample that they do during the creation, but for some
reason the background color went away when they put out the "real" page.
Probably some side efect of the page's structure when "real".  Real data is
dirty, like the rest of the real world.  And, of course, the fact that the
control stream is embedded in the data stream is a big part of the problem.
By this I mean the use of special characters to start control information,
thus requiring "escaping" to get those characters into the data (&amp,
etc.)...

Not to imply testing is unimportant, or that errors in the formatting
shouldn't be rare.

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: David Poehlman [mailto:poehlman1@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 5:06 AM
To: jonathan chetwynd; Simon White; WAI List (E-mail)
Subject: Re: HTML 4.x or XHTML for accessibility



If it is not rendered, it would seem the author would know before
nnouncing it to the world.

----- Original Message -----
From: "jonathan chetwynd" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
To: "Simon White" <simon.white@jkd.co.uk>; "WAI List (E-mail)"
<w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 4:16 AM
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.
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 08:19:00 GMT

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