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

Re: [OT] Web site accessibility-layers

From: James Craig <work@cookiecrook.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:22:30 -0500
Message-ID: <3EA01836.9040304@cookiecrook.com>
To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

David Woolley wrote:
>Newer browsers always break if you include the closing /, as the SGML
>definition of HTML invokes a behaviour in which <em/Emphasized Text/
>is valid markup.  Whilst I may have been overstating things slightly,
>any browser based on an SGML engine and using the published HTML 4.01
>DTDs will misparse any non-trivial XHTML 1.0 document.

I was referring to the closing slash on empty elements. If you are 
referring to something like <em /> then yes, it will break, but what's 
the point of an empty em, anyway? <br />, <hr />, <img />, <meta />, 
etc. all work fine in 'older' and 'newer' browsers. The one exception I 
can think of is a reference to an external script file. The script 
element had typically not been an empty element.

>>An mime type example for Patrick: I currently serve my site as valid 
>>XHTML 1.1 but with the incorrect mime type of "text/html" for 
> 
>This is a SHOULD NOT in the rules for using Content Types
>for XHTML.  Using text/html for XHTML 1.0 is a MAY.  See
><http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/>.

Yes, but any W3C recommendation is just that, a recommendation. I know 
it's 'incorrect' and proclaimed it as such. The reason I had that 
example to post is because I am trying to work out a way to serve the 
correct mime-type to the user-agents that will take it, while still 
supporting the ones that don't. Even so, why is what I'm doing any worse 
than serving HTML4? If IE and older browsers are going to render it the 
same way no matter what, then what's wrong with moving ahead?

One of the main reasons I'm using XHTML is for forward compatility with 
new agents that /may/ only accept XML. Currently devices like that 
(certain WAP phones, for example) usually have heavy-duty proxies in 
front of their access chewing up broken HTML to spit out lightweight XML 
(I know not all do this) but most of it is unnecessary given valid, 
semantic markup that adheres to a set of basic rules.

<hypothetical>
Now, I don't suppose any 'web browser' will only accept XML anytime 
soon, but I might be able to buy a refrigerator that keeps a grocery 
update in XML form to send to the grocery store. (I know, I'm reaching.) 
So if I keep my recipes online in XHTML, I should be able to view them 
in the kitchen when cooking, right? No XML/XSLT parsing necessary.
</hypothetical>

I apologize for getting so off-topic here. Back to accessibility.

Later,
James "More than willing to beta test an XML refrigerator" Craig
Received on Friday, 18 April 2003 11:22:44 GMT

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