Re: HTML 4.x or XHTML for accessibility

my answers are never very authoritative, however i imagine that in an ideal
world xhtml will be more accessible, as xml is the future, and xhtml is a
step in the direction of xml.

My most serious concern regarding xhtml, and xml (and this future), is that
code that has errors will not be rendered, try amaya.
This is bl*** awful for anyone with dyslexia, learning difficulties, DTs,
typos or other problems, as most would I think prefer some page rather than
no page.

thanks

jonathan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon White" <simon.white@jkd.co.uk>
To: "WAI List (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:00 AM
Subject: HTML 4.x or XHTML for accessibility


>
> Hello all,
> I have a rather interesting question to pose, and it is one that I cannot
seem to find a definitive answer for. Can anyone on the list provide me with
some help with the following question?
>
> Which is best for accessibility: HTML 4.x or XHTML standards?
>
> IF anyone knows if there is an answer to this then is it also possible to
scour everyone's brains for reasons why one is preferred above another.
>
> Thank you in anticipation
>
> Simon
>
> ---
> Simon White
> Business Solutions
> JKD
> Westminster Business Square
> 1-45 Durham Street
> London
> SE11 5JH
> Tel:  020 7793 9399
> Fax: 020 7793 9299
> URL:  www.jkd.co.uk
> ---
>
>
> James Kelsey Design Ltd (JKD) or The Incepta Group plc and its subsidiary
companies may not be held responsible for the content of this email as it
may reflect the personal view of the sender and not that of the company. JKD
run anti virus software on all servers and all workstations, they can not be
held responsible for any infected files that you may receive. JKD advises
all recipients to virus scan any file attachments.
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 04:16:12 UTC