On Friday, June 27, 2003, at 03:51 AM, tina@greytower.net wrote: > This, the entire debate, is important. It is important because of the > myths it is exposing *even on the WAIG IG* list. > > I see us quite clearly moving into a situation in which more and more > people will write XHTML because "someone said it is accessible!", > sending it as text/html, and every browser there is error correcting > for the same, foolish, mistakes that are done with HTML today. Indeed, I just encountered this on the XHTML-L list. I asked about this issue and someone well-meaning repeated exactly that -- "it's more accessible than HTML!" -- but had no good reason why. On the other hand, Simon St. Laurent, someone whose knowledge of XHTML and XML I respect, had this to say: (Kynn wrote): >> In that regard, both XHTML and HTML are equally accessible, >> and you can get the same benefit by using HTML 4.01 Strict. > (Simon wrote): > Yeah, I'm afraid so. > > It's slightly easier to write tools which test XHTML for accessibility > because there's less messing with parsing, but that's not a huge step > forward, at least in my mind. > > (And then there are nifty things like TagSoup which can coerce HTML to > XHTML anyway: > http://mercury.ccil.org/~cowan/XML/tagsoup > ) The key is to make sure that everyone has the same understanding of XHTML as Simon -- a difficult task, to be sure! -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com Author, CSS in 24 Hours http://cssin24hours.com Inland Anti-Empire Blog http://blog.kynn.com/iae Shock & Awe Blog http://blog.kynn.com/shockReceived on Friday, 27 June 2003 10:31:10 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:16 UTC