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

Re: More references on XML/XHTML and accessibility

From: <tina@greytower.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:11:15 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <200306271111.h5RBBF407005@localhost.localdomain>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

On 27 Jun, Tim Roberts wrote:

> Agreed.

  Agreed what with whom ??

> own choice ow language. I know Kynn uses both XHTML and HTML. My choice is to
> use just XHTML because for me it seems to make being accessible a simpler
> process. For me, I repeat!

  We've got that bit. YOU find XHTML more inherently accessible. That is
  not the problem, nor is the problem that Kynn is - if on occation
  right - an ass.

  The *problem* is when a *belief* in XHTML's inherent accessibility
  springs into critique of other people's solutions. When you state

    " You would have thought that the RNIB would have also gone for a
      CSS XHTML layout considering the inherent accessibility of
      such techniques."
        - Tim Roberts on

  then you go from "I believe" to "They should believe", and we find
  ourselves halfway down a slippery slope.

  "Why" - the RNIB could now say - "should we use a technique which,
  today, is not supported by the browser most people use ?"

  They would be right, and the entire list of problems that DO exist
  with their new site goes right down the drain alongside the
  reputation of accessibility "experts".

> I got on the defensive, because the argument did take a very sharp turn into
> an anti-XHTML rant somewhere in the middle. I made valid points, and Kynn did.

  Bollocks. This is not about anti-XHTML. This is about *accessibility*,
  and the beliefs and facts that follow. This is not about forwards
  thinking. This it not about being sticks-in-the-mud.

  This is about EITHER not giving a damn about standards and sending out
  broken XHTML which works PERFECTLY well in "my copy of IE", OR
  actually considering standards and, today, understanding that XHTML
  on the client-side has a problem with accessibility.

  XHTML might be perfectly fine on the server side, but unless you lie
  and call it HTML it's not very accessible on the client-side whether
  it is well-formed or not: even a well-formed, valid, spit'n'shined,
  i's dotted and t's crossed XHTML file *will not render* in IE, Lynx,
  and a host of other user-agents.

  This makes your *belief* that XHTML is more accessible exactly that. I
  am not going to comment on your arguments for XHTML accessibility, as
  the counter-arguments has been hashed over and over again.


> I also feel that when so many browser companmies and development tool
> manufacturers are moving towards standards support and the W3 brands XHTML as
> the successor to HTML that it may be a good move to start at least using
> transitional XHTML. Failure to acknowledge this, may result in sites that are


  What *I* think is that we are going to keep lying about XHTML
  content-type for the foreseeable future, but that more and more people
  are going to write more-or-less half-way intact XHTML.

> Those were my main arguments in the thread. I feel that they all hold true.

  You are entitled to keep your beliefs intact. I am entitled to express
  the opinion that it's politically and accessibility-wise a *really*
  bad move to use beliefs as critique.

 -    Tina Holmboe                    Greytower Technologies
   tina@greytower.net                http://www.greytower.net/
   [+46] 0708 557 905
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 07:11:40 UTC

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