- From: Patrick Lauke <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 10:47:23 +0100
- To: <public-evangelist@w3.org>
> Jim Ley > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> > <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en"> > <script src="thing.src" type="text/javascript"/> > <title>Chickens!</title> > <body> > <h1>Chickens</h1> > </body> > </html> Fair enough, so IE only understands compatible XHTML 1.0, as it get thrown by the minimisation of the script element (I assume your code not having a HEAD was just an oversight, and that you wanted to emphasise the point that IE gets confused by not seeing a closing </script> tag) But, to play devil's advocate: doesn't that reinforce the whole original point even more? That saying WCAG 1.0 11.1 mandates the use of *real* XHTML is wrong, seeing that the browser with still the largest use and market share does not support XHTML? And that, really, HTML 4.01 is still the flavour of markup that 11.1 mandates as a baseline (and any sites opting to go with compatible XHTML 1.0 or higher are going one step further than what WCAG 1.0 is requiring them to do)? Patrick ________________________________ Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk
Received on Friday, 20 May 2005 09:46:43 UTC