Re: XHTML/XML some constructive comments required.

On 27 Jun, Tim Roberts wrote:

>>   Or are you by this trying to say that "I meant XHTML 1.0 Transitional
>>   all along, and not XHTML 1.1 even if that is the latest and most
>>   thoroughly structure/layout separated version" ?
> Is that what I am trying to say? I seriously don't know becasue I am asking
> for some clarification in a few areas that I would like to know more about.

  Fair enough. Let's list a few alternatives with their content type,
  the effect on WCAG, the result in browsers, and consequences for
  standards compliance:

  Markup      Content                 WAI (11.1)  UA     Standard
   HTML 4.01   text/html               Ok          Yes    Yes
   XHTML 1.0   text/html               Not ok      Yes    Yes
   XHTML 1.0   application/xhtml+xml   Not ok      No     Yes
   XHTML 1.1   text/html               Ok          Yes    No
   XHTML 1.1   application/xhtml+xml   Ok          No     Yes

  (The 11.1 interpretation is my own, but I'm fairly confident about it)

   If you are writing documents as XHTML 1.0 you are, in effect, writing
   HTML with XML syntax. Since it is interpreted as HTML by browsers if
   sent as text/html, you can make exactly the same structural mistakes
   without anything catching it. Basically browsers will take the XML
   syntax and throw it out as "HTML tagsoup errors", and try to fix it.
   's why some versions of Netscape 4 has problems with <br/> (and why
   one is advised to write <br />)

   If you are writing documents as XHTML 1.1 you are writing an XML
   based language. If you serve it per standard it will be interpreted
   as that, and not rendered in, among others, IE at all. Serve it as
   HTML, and faulty code will render.

   Write structured HTML 4.01 Strict plus CSS and you'll get a
   standards-compliant, design-and-layout separated, and (with some
   other things fixed) WCAG compliant solution.

   Write structured XHTML 1.1 plus CSS, and you'll get a
   standards-compliant, design-and-layout separated, and (with some
   other things fixed) WCAG compliant solution *where you have to decide
   whether to violate the standard and serve as tagsoup or not*.

   You wouldn't get any server-side benefits, but we're not discussing
   that. If the RNIB - the site which started it all - used XHTML on the
   client side and did a (poor) transformation to HTML you'd never know

   If you want *forward* compatible you'll go to a fully server-based
   solution (whether XML or database driven) using templates and
   transformations to sever the connection between what format your
   content is in and what format is sent to the various clients -
   including the print-shop.


> The DOCTYPE I placed in the example for comment is one I regularly use. So the
> question is how does that affect the example you gave. Was I implying I meant
> XHTML 1.0 Transitional. I didn't intend to, but did I?

  My interpretation: in the context of accessibility (ie. 11.1 in this
  case), saying "Use XHTML" means "Use XHTML 1.1 with the correct

  Which has a few problems attached that HTML 4.01 avoid.

>>   Thankyou. I'll take that as a compliment. I always take some time out
>>   to moderate what I first wrote. I wouldn't want to hurt anyone.
> Yes, Bollocks and ass are not that offensive to me, just a bit unprofessional.

  It was clearly wrong of me to express the frustration I feel over this

 PS: serves XHTML 1.1 as tagsoup - sorry: text/html - unless 
  you have a UA that claims to understand application/xhtml+xml. FYI.
 -    Tina Holmboe                    Greytower Technologies      
   [+46] 0708 557 905

Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 08:31:00 UTC