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

Juicy Studio was Re: User customization using a style sheet switcher and server side scripts.

From: gez <gez@juicystudio.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 00:07:25 -0000
Message-ID: <00cc01c3a3f9$f5ce5470$1700a8c0@juicy.com>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Hi Dave,

Thank you for the feedback.

> I hope this is XHTML 1.0 Strict with Appendix C restrictions.  Even
> then, you are not supplying valid markup to the browser - Appendix C
> relies are particular error handling characteristics.  I am pretty

It is XHTML 1.0 Strict with Appendix C restrictions.

> sure that you cannot get beyond level A compliance by serving XHTML
> with a text/html media type.

I can kind of see the logic in this, as the process involves serving broken
markup to a user agent and then relying on its error handling capabilities.
The closest guideline I'm aware of that comes close to covering this issue
is guideline 11.1 "Use W3C technologies when they are available and
appropriate for a task and use the latest versions when supported", which is
a priority 2 issue. If you're interpreting that serving XHMTL 1.0 Strict
with a MIME type of  text/html to user agents is inappropriate for the task,
then it would fail level "AA". According to the W3C, XHTML 1.0 Strict may be
served with a content type of text/html, so I've not interpreted it as being
inappropriate for the task.

> There is no valid reason, as far as I can see, for going beyond
> HTML 4.01 Strict unless you have an application that uses multiple
> namespaces (and targetting a limited community on specialist
> browsers).

It's a long story, but in a nutshell, Juicy Studio started off as a set of
static pages. I needed a way of updating content automatically, so built
myself a set of XML tools to update the content. The tools are crude, but
required the content (once I'd stripped a few bits out, and added a few
bits) to be well formed so I could process it as XML. Although the tools are
crude, I still use it for major updates. In the meantime, I've updated the
site to ASP, so it would probably be easier now to rewrite in sections, and
use server side includes for easy update. The XML tools are already there,
and lazyness prevents me from updating 400+ files. Some of the tools are
used to create content dynamically, such as the RSS feed. I could still
achieve this with ASP, but it seems a lot of work when everything's already
in place.

Best regards.

Gez
_____________________________
Supplement your vitamins
Web: http://www.juicystudio.com
Email: gez@juicystudio.com
Keeping developers informed!
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: User customization using a style sheet switcher and server side
scripts.


>
> > XHTML 1.0 Strict with a MIME type of text/html. I'm not a huge fan of
>
> I hope this is XHTML 1.0 Strict with Appendix C restrictions.  Even
> then, you are not supplying valid markup to the browser - Appendix C
> relies are particular error handling characteristics.  I am pretty
> sure that you cannot get beyond level A compliance by serving XHTML
> with a text/html media type.
>
> > content negotiation, but until user agents catch up, I have no choice.
>
> They are not going to catch up in the foreseeable future as IE is no
> longer being developed, although it remains the dominant browser.
> (See www-html@w3.org for statements about the development status
> from a member of the IE for Mac team.)
>
> There is no valid reason, as far as I can see, for going beyond
> HTML 4.01 Strict unless you have an application that uses multiple
> namespaces (and targetting a limited community on specialist
> browsers).
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2003 19:05:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:13 GMT