- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 11:16:54 +0100
- To: <public-evangelist@w3.org>
From: "Patrick Lauke" <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk> >> Jim Ley >But, to play devil's advocate: doesn't that reinforce the whole >original point even more? I believe it does yes, XHTML 1.1 is no less supported in current user agents than XHTML 1.0, therefore if you believe that XHTML 1.0 is supported then you also have to believe that XHTML 1.1 is, so WCAG 11.1 says _use the latest specification where supported_ so either XHTML 1.0 is supported enough to be used, in which case so is XHTML 1.1, or it's not, in which case neither are appropriate. > (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)? XHTML 1.0 is not a later version of HTML 4.01 - Nowhere in WCAG 11.1 (or anywhere else in WCAG) recommends makes you decide a particular technology, you can choose XHTML or HTML, if you choose either 11.1 says to use the latest supported, that is either 4.01 in the case HTML, or 1.1 in the case of XHTML, if you choose XHTML, you use 1.1, it's equally as supported as XHTML 1.0. As to the compatibility guidelines, they're a joke which not even the W3 decides to bother with on their own homepage, and the HTML WG has left open issues against for more years than I have mail archives for - resulting in the W3's own homepage begining with untelligible gobbledygook on at least one of the most modern browsers available for one of the platforms I have in this room. (C.1 and C.14 both ignored, C1 causing the problem.) Jim.
Received on Friday, 20 May 2005 10:17:11 UTC