Re: More references on XML/XHTML and accessibility

Tim,

> This always seems to be the pattern with your posts to this list. Ever the
> protagonist and getting abrasive and rude by the end.

I will disagree with you right here. Kynn has asked some very pertinent
questions - and good questions too. For me, it has highlighted that there is
a perception that XHTML is somehow more accessible by default than HTML, but
there seems to be no firm factual basis for that opinion/belief/perception.

The main question is still: You believe XHTML is more accessible than HTML -
why? Its fine for you to believe that - but to use it as one of the points
raised against the RNIB, without being able to substantiate that
belief/perception/opinion only serves to degrade the quality of the
criticism to the RNIB for their choices.


> I don't want to discredit you.

And I have no intention of doing similar either. I follow both your blogs
and websites - because you both share knowledge freely and willingly, and
that knowledge about accessibility, web standards and other web-related
technologies is something I am keenly interested in.


> I just want to make accessible web-sites

So do we all on this list. However when your definition of an accessible
website clashes with (IMO) a more generally accepted definition to the
extent that it is difficult to reconcile both view points, then it makes it
harder for us to sell accessibility to website owners.


May I make the suggestion that both you and Kynn take a breather from this
thread for a couple of days. Then have a read through of the thread again
after that -- you'll see you both have strong beliefs (which is good), but
have you considered the factual basis for that belief? May I then also
suggest you author an article about why you consider XHTML to be more
accessible than HTML.



Mike.