- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 10:41:04 -0000
- To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
"Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org> > Well, it depends what you want to do with the XHTML. Many people want stuff > that renders in a browser, and XHTML written according to the compatibility > guidelines can render in Lynx, Amaya, Mozilla beta IE on various platforms, iCab, etc. but not IE on all platforms, and not the myriad of other browsers, including ones in embedded systems which aren't (easily) upgradeable. Suggesting XHTML 1.0 with some compatibility guidlines will make your content render appropriately in more browsers is clear bunkum HTML 4.01 has all the accessibility features of XHTML 1.0 and has the bonus of being supported in a lot more browsers. If XHTML is appropriate for future browsers, then the simple matter of content-negotiation on the XHTML mime-type is appropriate. > (supports SVG plugin on > Mac OS, although when it gets out of beta it is expected to support it > natively), I fear you've not been keeping up with Bugzilla... http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=133567 which says it applies to ALL OS's. I also understand there is no chance of native SVG making it into Mozilla 1.0, which has already been pretty much fixed (a Release Candidate is due on the 15th). > The problem is that there isn't any very well defined way to point to > arbitrary parts of HTML, and particularly for invalid HTML. The SGML normalisation is every bit as appropriate as an xhtml one, it's also simpler to implement as it's what the browsers and validators are already doing... Jim.
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 06:45:53 UTC