- From: Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:34:38 -0700
- To: tina@greytower.net
- Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Friday, June 27, 2003, at 05:30 AM, tina@greytower.net wrote: > 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 > XHTML 1.0 text/html Not ok Yes Yes > XHTML 1.0 application/xhtml+xml Not ok No Yes Where do you get that XHTML fails 11.1? It is explicitly mentioned in the core techniques. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CORE-TECHS/#access-reviewed > Basically browsers will take the XML > syntax and throw it out as "HTML tagsoup errors", and try to fix it. Which browsers do this? IE6 handles valid doctypes in standards mode: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/ dnie60/html/cssenhancements.asp The same is true of Mozilla (standards mode for XHTML 1.0 Strict, "almost standards" mode for Transitional): http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/quirks/doctypes.html And Opera 7.1 (and 7.0 to 7.03 if you leave out the XML declaration): http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/doctype/ > My interpretation: in the context of accessibility (ie. 11.1 in this > case), saying "Use XHTML" means "Use XHTML 1.1 with the correct > content-type". 11.1 reads "Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a task and use the latest versions when supported." You seem to be saying that XHTML is not widely supported, but then bring up 11.1 as if it is. - m
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 11:34:43 UTC