W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: Validation in WCAG 2

From: David Dorward <david@us-lot.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:36:43 +0100
Message-Id: <1DA785E4-F0FA-11D8-A496-000A957E4F00@us-lot.org>
To: wai-ig list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

On 18 Aug 2004, at 09:56, Jesper Tverskov wrote:
> But there are also some problems in the validation-issue. It is easy to
> make the transitional versions of HTML and XHTML validate but not that
> easy if you opt for "strict" or XHTML 1.1.

What is so much harder about using Strict or XHTML 'SHOULD NOT be 
served to Internet Explorer' 1.1?

* You have to give up forcing new windows on users (or use JS)
* You have to give up on frames (or use JS)

... and if you are not willing to do that then why are you using Strict 
in the first place?

Everything else is trivial to achieve with CSS - usually a case of 
one-to-one mapping of deprecated attributes to properties, or just 
ditching obsolete attributes (like <script language>).

You might be thinking of using semantic markup instead of abusing 
tables for layout and blockquotes for indentation but - despite a 
strong link between documents advocating Strict over Transitional and 
documents advocating Structure/Semantics over Layout - switching to 
Strict doesn't stop you doing that. The elements are still there in 
Strict to be abused, you are just more likely to see instances of:

   <td style="width: 172px; height:27px; padding: 0pt;"><img 
src="logo.gif" alt="logo" style="width: 172px; height: 27px;"/></td>

instead of:
   <td width="172"><img src="logo.gif" height="27" width="172" 

David Dorward
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2004 09:36:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:29 UTC