W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: Can Browsers Attempt to Render Broken XHTML?

From: <tina@greytower.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:44:53 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <200306271044.h5RAir406976@localhost.localdomain>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

On 27 Jun, Tim Roberts wrote:

> You are in no way mistaken by what I wrote.

  Glad to have that sorted.

> 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.

  Guideline 10, yes. Have you read it ?

  I'm finding it a distinct possibility that I am on the "loosing" side
  of an argument being skewed into a debate about forwards and backwards

  However, let me - for a  moment - be overly helpful and point out
  that: Guideline 10 in the WCAG does not say: "Until user agents can
  handle X, lie to them"

  What it does say is: until user agents in general can handle all that
  we throw at them, we should make life abit easier for them by
  including, for instance, non-link printable characters between links.

  There is *nothing* in the WCAG interim solutions about breaking

> 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.

   "You don't need to serve the correct mimetype at this time, but you
    can easily adjust that in the future."
        - Tim Roberts in <3EFB5CE0.8010103@wiseguysonly.com>

   I'm sorry. This does not fit with defending standards.

> XHTML does contain much inherent accessibility

  As does HTML. Which brings us back to the original point. Mike said it
  very well in a later posting:

    "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."
          - Mike "Isofarro" in <007701c33c8e$69a5c500$8e33f7c2@laptop>

> Are my sites inaccessible because I use interim solutions. No. This is 
> nitpicking.

  Technical professions are very, very often about nitpicking. It's what
  keeps bridges up and ships floating.

   I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Would people PLEASE 
   cut out all unnecessary quoting when posting ? I'm downloading the
   entire conversation time after time after time. Some of us still PAY
   for this, y'know.

 -    Tina Holmboe                    Greytower Technologies
   tina@greytower.net                http://www.greytower.net/
   [+46] 0708 557 905
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 06:45:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:16 UTC