- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 00:18:57 +0100
- To: <public-evangelist@w3.org>
"Brian Kelly" <B.Kelly@ukoln.ac.uk> >> You don't go back to something. You only choose the language which >> suits your need. There's nothing wrong in one or the other. > > Section 11.1 of WCAG 1.0 states: > "Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a task > and use > the latest versions when supported. [Priority 2]" [1] > > Surely for WCAG AA compliance you have to use XHTML 1.0 (assuming XHTML > 1.0 is > the latest version of HTML)? There's an XHTML 1.1 in any case... but XHTML is not a latest version of HTML. http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/ "XHTML 1.0 (this specification) is the first document type in the XHTML family. It is a reformulation of the three HTML 4 document types as applications of XML 1.0 [XML]. " >Note the above statement gives no hint of any > user choice, along the lines you suggest. >> I'm about to definitely switch my *personal* Web site to application/ >> xhtml+xml, which might crash users of IE 6.0 Win. I have never heard of an IE6 crash with the usage of this mime-type, it handles it correctly in all testing I've done. Could you provide some more info on this crash? >> For IE7 Win, there's a request for application/xhtml+xml support on >> their wiki. >> http://channel9.msdn.com/wiki/default.aspx/ >> Channel9.InternetExplorerStandardsSupport That would be a disaster, XHTML's conformance requirements are too demanding for a browser. Cheers, Jim.
Received on Sunday, 8 May 2005 23:19:18 UTC