- 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