W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: Serving XHTML as XML

From: Gez Lemon <gl@juicystudio.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:58:08 -0000
Message-ID: <003401c519f2$c2673190$6400a8c0@juicy.com>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Hi Jesper,

> Let me start by once again reminding the list that
> Gez and http://juicystudio.com also serves
> application/xhtml+xml to browsers understanding it.
> We only disagree about what to serve to the rest, IE,
> Lynx, old browsers, etc. Or rather: I accept both
> solutions and said so in my last mail.

This isn't what I was objecting to. If it were, we would disagree on more
than what to serve user agents that do not understand application/xhtml+xml;
we would also disagree on what you should send those that do support that
MIME type. Whether or not I use content negotiation is also irrelevant to
the point I was trying to make.

> But if it works for you do it. In my last mail I even called
> that practice for nice. It is not fair when you say: "why do
> you want to persecute people"

I apologise if that is unfair. If I can refer you back to the part I was
objecting to:

> WCAG 11.1 says:
> "Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for
> a task and use the latest versions when supported." [Priority 2]
> Since is has been possible for several years to serve XHTML as
> XML to browsers understanding it, I would say that one can't
> claim Conformance Level "Double-A" if one is just using HTML.

This is the part I object to. XHTML isn't properly supported by the majority
of current user agents at this moment in time, so I fail to see why
developers should not be able to claim Double-A if they produce valid HTML
that adheres to all priority 1 and priority 2 checkpoints.

I hope that's clarified my stand on the issue.

Best regards,

Supplement your vitamins
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 21:54:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:31 UTC