W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2003

RE: Web site accessibility-layers

From: Lauke PH <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 09:30:02 +0100
Message-ID: <3A1D23A330416E4FADC5B6C08CC252B902B7D3@misnts6.mis.salford.ac.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

> > > More and more sites are now starting to go for xhtml+css only
> > * layouts, abandoning "visual" support for older, 
> non-compliant browsers
> 
> ??? I don't recall 508 or W3C saying any browsers were no longer
> compliant,  (compliant with what??)

I never mentioned 508, and no, you can quite happily code HTML 4.01 without "breaking any accessibility rules".
Also, I did not say the W3C has declared any browsers non-compliant. Maybe we're getting into semantics, but to rephrase my statement: browsers which have a flawed implementation of CSS and/or xhtml. In particular, I'm thinking of Netscape 4.x's partial support for CSS2.

> 
> > Which could be a problem as the dominant browser is not an 
> XHTML browser,
> > as will be pointed out regularly on the www-html list.
> 
> and 508 - W3C does not limit itself to "Dominant" or any other kind of
> browser....

Again, in the last year of coding xhtml, I have not come across cases in which my code breaks. On the contrary, I found that it degrades very gracefully and with consistent results, from the latest nightly build of open source browsers down to text browsers such as Lynx and BrailleSurf. Sure, sometimes the CSS needs to be tweaked to work around quirks such as IE's box model, but nevertheless the actual code xhtml works fine.

Patrick 
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2003 04:31:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:09 GMT