- From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.ac.be>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:30:00 +0200
- To: tina@greytower.net, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Hi Tina, At 14:30 27/06/2003, you wrote: > (...) 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) According to the W3C Note "XHTML Media Types" (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/) you can distiguish between XHTML 1.0 documents that follow the HTML Compatibilty Guidelines (http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xhtml1-20000126/#guidelines) and XHTML documents that don't. The first type 'may' use 'text/html', the second type 'should not'. Can you explain why your list does not take this distinction into account? My interpretation of WCAG 11.1 differs from yours (which does not mean your interpretation is wrong). If using XHTML 1.1 with one of the appropriate media types causes problems in a number of browsers that are in use today, can XHTML 1.1 be considered as "appropriate" for the task? WCAG 11.1 also says "use the latest versions *when supported*" (my emphasis). (For the sake of the argument I disregard the possiblity to serve different content & media types to different browsers, because not everyone can configure the server that hosts their websites.) Finally, why do you consider both HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.1 "the latest versions"? Best regards, Christophe -- Christophe Strobbe K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM tel: +32 16 32 85 51 http://www.docarch.be/
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 10:28:04 UTC