- From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 21:57:37 +0100
- To: <maurizio@usabile.it>, <michele@diodati.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I don't think HTML working group would be happy about this: this means put in the trash can all their work from 1999 to today :) Qnd in name of what? For poor knowledge of markup? ----- Messaggio originale ----- Da: "Maurizio Boscarol"<maurizio@usabile.it> Inviato: 06/11/05 21.53.08 A: "michele@diodati.org"<michele@diodati.org>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Oggetto: Re: Is validity the real issue? Michele, I agree with your premises, but I can't understand your solution. For my point of view, application/xhtml+xml mime type decrease the chance of a page to be rendered: it will be rendered only if prefectly well-formed. At the moment, a lot of pages won't be rendered. So I can't understand how this would help accessibility. At the opposite, I'm evaluating the idea that wcag 2.0 should reccomend to use text/html mime type (and backward compatibility guidelines of Apendix C) for any page whose you are unsure you can grant the present and future validity. You should only use application/xhtml+xml mime type when you're absolutely sure that nothing can go wrong. That's rarely the case. As you know, I personally think that something is better than nothing. :) So, the XML specification that say that UA shouldn't attempt to render invalid pages are wrong and against accessibility, because decrease the chance of someone accessing something. But this is a different topic: I just wanted to know if I understand your proposal. Maurizio Michele Diodati wrote: >I would propose to the group to examine another point of view about >validity issue. > >It seems to me that the real problem with requesting validity to >developers is the ability of browsers to compensate for lacking of >validity: they succeed in rendering even a web page with thousand of >errors within. Though there are many good reasons to publish pages >without (X)HTML errors, no one of these is decisive. A " " at the >end of a page is enough to get invalid code; at the same time, today >the front page of The New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/> has 17 >errors and I can nevertheless read it. > >I think that requesting validity as a basic requisite for >accessibility need something stronger than a vague possibility that >something goes wrong with an AT. As developers, we need such a >guideline that, if we do not apply it, the effect is immediately >visible and unequivocal. So, if we think validity is indispensable, a >solution could be to request, for every web page published, a >content-type of application/xhtml+xml. In that case, validity is >actually necessary: no validity no rendering of the page. (To address >old browsers incapability with a content-type of application/xhtml+xml >is always possible to create a server side switch for serving a >content-type of text/html to all the old user agents.) > >Best regards, >Michele Diodati >-- > >---------------------------------- >M i c h e l e D i o d a t i >Via Pian due Torri 86 - 00146 Roma >Tel. 06 5503533 - Fax 06 233212132 >http://www.diodati.org >---------------------------------- > > > > > [Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]
Received on Sunday, 6 November 2005 20:54:36 UTC