Re: FYI: Why Web Standards Matter

scripsit Tom Gilder:
 
> Not exactly the best article about standards ever, but something is
> better than nothing. It does make some very common mistakes however...

There seems to be some conflation of WCAG and XHTML.  I've encounted
this in my own work when I introduced valid XHTML, CSS, and WCAG
compliance as part of a Web accessibility initiative.  The whole effort
had a tendency to be reduced to "CSS" or "ADA" (the Americans with
Disabilities Act) in some people's vocabulary.

> "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.

True, but the difference is subtle to someone first encountering the
concept of text alternatives.  I wouldn't be overcritical there, given
that it's written for a `layperson'.

> "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.

This is where I think she means WCAG, not 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.

Proposed interview question for Web `designers': ``Please explain the
relationship among SGML, XML, HTML, and XHTML.''

Since so few Web `experts' have any clue what SGML is, or what it has to
do with HTML, it's not surprising that the XML::XHTML relationship
confuses them.

> "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.

I don't understand you.  If it's X(HT)ML, empty elements (she conflates
elements and tags here, too) _must_ be closed, whether as <br /> or
<br></br>.  We prefer the former so ancient noncompliant browsers don't
barf.  But it must be one or the other, or it's not well-formed XML,
much less valid XHTML.

-- 
Thanasis Kinias
Doctoral Student, Department of History
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.

Ash nazg durbatulūk, ash nazg gimbatul,
Ash nazg thrakatulūk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul

Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 00:59:55 UTC