Re: /> in head of xhtml page being rendered by emacs-w3

At 2:34 PM +0000 1/21/02, Jim Ley wrote:
>Is there an Errata for  <URL: >  ?
>Which states "Compatibility with existing HTML user agents is possible by
>following a small set of guidelines."

Not that I am aware of; I think the statement itself is more than a
little bit of hyperbole.

>In an accessibility context what do we use XHTML which is known to be
>incompatible with certain browsers (and even many modern main ones are
>tag-souping it - see Mozilla bugs.), or HTML 4.01?

It's a very hard choice to make.  I don't have a good answer, really.
I like XHTML better than HTML 4 -- but there _are_ a small number of
legitimate HTML browsers which will have minor to serious problems
with XHTML.

If it were a case of broken HTML, I would be all for saying, "well,
they're broken, they should upgrade" -- but I don't feel this is the
case here.  The change from HTML to XHTML has that 0.56% incompatibility

Another example, which -is- accounted for in the XHTML compatibility
guidelines, is that you _can't_ use an embedded style sheet via
<style> and effectively hide it from older browsers, in XHTML.  A
friend and I had this discussion last week -- it relates to the fact
that comments in XML (and thus XHTML) can/should be thrown away
completely, so you can't use XHTML comments to hide your CSS.


Kynn Bartlett <>       
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain  
Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire
January Web Accessibility eCourse 
Forthcoming: Teach Yourself CSS in 24 Hours

Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 13:55:04 UTC