W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > June 2005

RE: Which DTD is better Transitional or Strict?

From: Terry Dean <Terry.Dean@chariot.net.au>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:02:59 +0930
To: "'David Dorward'" <david@dorward.me.uk>
Cc: <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20050619153302.1878A33E673@mail.chariot.net.au>

Hi David,

I made the decision to use XHTML over HTML 4.01 because there's no rule to
say you shouldn't and partly because I see it as forward thinking. I'm
saying that based on what I read in the XHTML FAQ which implies that its ok
to send XHTML as text/html:

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#texthtml


But my question is specifically aimed at whether valid XHTML 1.0
Transitional code is acceptable for accessibility standards or are you
saying that unless you use XHTML 1.0 Strict! or HTML 4.01 Strict! that we
should not be claiming conformance with regards to accessibility (here again
I accept that validation alone is not the only requirement). The
specifications appear to be ambiguous to me, the word Transitional implies
that it is an interim solution designed for backwards compatibility or
legacy browsers.

This might not be the list to pose this question so I will ask the WAI to
clarify this.

Thanks,

Terry Dean

-----Original Message-----
on Sunday, 19 June 2005 11:06 PM, David Dorward wrote:

So my advice is to stick to Strict (I'd also suggest sticking to HTML 4.01
unless you really had a need for XHTML on the client side - which most
don't).

> Especially if you are claiming to create totally accessible web sites?

I'd suggest you asked the WAI about that ... if there wasn't currently a big
argument brewing over whether or not validity should be an accessibility
checkpoint at all.


David Dorward                                    
Received on Sunday, 19 June 2005 15:33:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:19 GMT