- From: <Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 16:07:17 -0400
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
<neil> Is there any reason why you would need to deliver this functionality via HTML when a perfectly valid alternative is available in XHTML. </neil> Yes, Neil, I agree that XHTML is where we want to be going and that is the path that IBM and the PF working group is pursuing. Perhaps I should not have used the DHTML roadmap as an example since we are going the standards route and pursuing an XHTML solution. I used it as a real world example that I hoped many on the list might be familiar with. I could find other HTML examples if necessary, the DHTML roadmap is the one I am most familiar with and could be implemented in HTML. A previous post from Matt discussed the issues with XHTML and the lack of support today for application/xhtml+xml [1]. To use XHTML 1.1 correctly it should be served as application/xhtml+xml which I can not do if I want to reach a majority of users. The W3C states that I should not serve XHTML 1.1[2] as text/html. So, perhaps my XHTML 1.1 can be made to pass validation with a customized DTD, but I'm still not really serving XHTML correctly according to the W3C. It is a chicken or egg situation. If I use XHTML correctly I am serving a limited market. If I use HTML I am violating the specification but I am reaching a larger market and perhaps moving my ideas forward more rapidly. Which is correct? From a standards view XHTML is correct, from a marketing perspective HTML is the correct answer. As I have stated before, I am not against pursuing standards but I do have to develop applications within the constraints of the web today where, unfortunately, it takes time for new standards to be supported. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0766.html [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#summary Becky Gibson Web Accessibility Architect IBM Emerging Internet Technologies 5 Technology Park Drive Westford, MA 01886 Voice: 978 399-6101; t/l 333-6101 Email: gibsonb@us.ibm.com
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2005 20:07:28 UTC