- From: Tim Roberts <tim@wiseguysonly.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:56:12 +0200
- To: tina@greytower.net, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
You are in no way mistaken by what I wrote. As developers we are sometimes forced to use interim solutions. I believe that may even appear in the WAI somewhere; I am sure you can find it. The tells us XHTML is a successor to HTML, and I use interim solutions with XHTML. My only crime here is trying to defend standards. I will also refer you and others to what I said originally and what appears in this message: XHTML does contain much inherent accessibility Nothing wrong with that. Are my sites inaccessible because I use interim solutions. No. This is nitpicking. tina@greytower.net wrote: >On 26 Jun, Tim Roberts wrote: > > > >>Kynn Bartlett wrote: >> >> >> >>>On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 09:46 AM, Tim Roberts wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>How can they be losing presumed accessibility benefits if the >>>>document is: >>>> >>>>Well structured, with style seperated from content. >>>> >>>> >>>That's not an advantage of XHTML over HTML. (An HTML 4.01 could very >>>well separate content from presentation.) >>> >>> >>OK, I didn't say anything about advantages over HTML. Refer to what you >>were replying to above to see this. >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>Equipped to apply any of the operations that could be applied to XML >>>>on the >>>>server side to accommodate alternative browsing devices. >>>> >>>> >>>Except that if something is sent as text/html -- and not as >>>application/xhtml+xml -- what justification is there for using >>>XML tools on it? It's just HTML, right? Even if you coded it >>>as XHTML... >>> >>> >>Yes, agreed. You can easily reformat your valid XML (XHTML) document >>into HTML and in many different ways, including >>a total overhaul of your content if you wish. And all without altering >>the original document. Is this bad? >> >> >> >>> >>>(You'd have to make a bad assumption, and then be prepared to handle >>>SGML-based HTML if you're accepting text/html and assuming it's >>>XML -- so you lose the benefits of XHTML here.) >>> >>> >>> >>>>Possibly lighter on bandwidth if CSS/XHTML combination is used >>>>correctly. >>>> >>>> >>>No, there's nothing about XHTML+CSS that makes it lighter on bandwidth >>>than HTML+CSS. In fact, XHTML is often going to be slightly "heavier" >>>than HTML: >>> >>> >>> > > > > >>> <br> four characters >>> <br /> six characters >>> >>> >>Convenient example. >> >> > > Correct example. All elements which, today, are 'open ended' should, > in XHTML, be closed. That *will* increase the bandwith. > > > > > >>Why is it then that many HTML sites contain much less seperation of >>content and style than XHTML? >> >> > > Because IT and in *particular* the Web field contain by far the > largest amount of self-taught, delusional, shitty poor authors any > professional industry have ever seen ? > > Granted, harsh words. But I'm damned if I ever saw a kid with a 3 > weeks course in Frontpage ever cut it in any *other* professional > field. > > > > > >>Not really. How to present XHTML is well documented on the internet. It >>is forward thinking. You don't need to serve the correct mimetype at >>this time, but you can easily adjust that in the future. >> >> > > ... > > Now hold it for just one moment. Are you saying that we should > strive towards standards compliance in what we do, but *ignore parts > of the standard at leisure* ? > > What on earth makes THIS mess any better than the one we have, barely, > just left ? What, *exactly*, is the difference between: > > "Oh, I don't need to serve my documents with the proper content type > today, since no browsers CARE about it" > > and > > "Oh, I don't need to use the LINK element to create document > collections today, since no browsers CARE about it" > > then ? > > Am I utterly mistaken in that you wrote: > > "XHTML does contain much inherent accessibility. The very first > thing standards based development addresses is the issue of making our > documents available to the largest number of web users regardless of > the client software they use. Accessibility may I remind you is far > from just an issue of physical disability." > Tim Roberts in <20030625132800.M27123@wiseguysonly.com> > > Because if I am *not* mistaken, then how on Earth are you going to > reconcile "standards based development" with "you don't need to > serve the correct mime-type at this time" ? > > IF XHTML is better for accessibility than HTML - everything else > being equal - because it FORCES an author to be standards-compliant, > then it follows that the document needs to be served up according to > the same standard - which means it won't *work* for users of Lynx and > IE, among others. > > Frankly, I'm getting abit afraid of the dark here. > > >
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 18:54:08 UTC