- From: <tina@greytower.net>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:11:15 +0200 (CEST)
- 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 http://www.accessify.com/archives/2003_06_22_news-archives.asp#105646014644065669 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 http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/itcommunity/chats/trans/ie/ie0507.asp 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