- From: Tom Gilder <tom@tom.me.uk>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:56:02 +0100
- To: public-evangelist@w3.org
On Monday, August 19, 2002, 1:34:48 PM, you wrote: > http://libraryjournal.reviewsnews.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA232338&publication=libraryjournal Not exactly the best article about standards ever, but something is better than nothing. It does make some very common mistakes however... "Valid XHTML requires that every image on a web site includes descriptive text that tells the user what the image is." No, no, no. It doesn't. XHTML requires alt text on every image (but alt="" is totally valid, and often needed) - and alt text is *not* a description of an image, it is the meaning. Putting a description in every alt attribute often leads to confusing and over-verbose pages. "XHTML also requires that headers, lists, and other structural tags be used so readers on assistive technology are presented with a coherent document that flows logically. " XHTML doesn't require this either. This is an option you have. You can mark everything up with <pre> if you so wish, it would still be valid XHTML. "Furthermore, as a light version of XML, XHTML will help developers transition to full-blown XML, a richer markup language that will soon afford even greater interoperability to web sites." Eh?? XHTML *is* full-blown XML. Why do people have such a problem with understanding this? XML isn't going to "replace" XHTML by any means. "In XHTML, even "empty" tags like <br> and <img> must close themselves by including a space and a forward slash at the very end of the tag" Not very good usage of "must". It is a good idea to, but you don't *have* to. Yeh, I'm being picky. But I'm in a picky mood. So there :) -- Tom Gilder http://tom.me.uk/
Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 09:56:32 UTC