- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 03:36:21 -0500 (EST)
- To: dody suria wijaya <dodysw@telkom.net>
- cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
It is compliant with HTML, but not with XHTML. In other words you will be backwards compatible still, but not forwards compatible. It saves bytes over the network, at the cost of kilobytes in browser size, meaning more expensive systems are required to read it. (One of the reasons why phone systems all work on XML is that it can be used in a smaller computer, and phones have small computers in them) This is the classic chicken and egg problem that plagues accessibility, in one of its easier forms. If developers do not produce forwards-compatible code, then there is little point in having newer systems that are designed to take advantage of design improvements. So the relatively expensive work of developing accessible systems that take advantage of that will have a tiny market. In cases like this, unless bandwidth is a really extremely critical concern I would recommend including the extra bytes. (And at $5/minute for a 9600 baud connection I would still rather be sure that the code I am getting is going to work on my system - the bytes saved are a lot fewer than if I download half a page before finding out it is no good to me) cheers Charles McCN On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, dody suria wijaya wrote: i've seen google don't close <tr> and <td> tags with </tr> and </td>. probably to safe some precious bytes. and browser don't seems to care. is it still html compliant? -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2002 03:36:29 UTC