W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: XHTML/XML some constructive comments required.

From: <tina@greytower.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:00:52 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <200306271600.h5RG0q407708@localhost.localdomain>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

On 27 Jun, Matt May wrote:

> 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.

  XHTML 1.0 fails 11.1 since there is a later version of XHTML released;
  a version which works in supporting browsers. As mentioned, this is my
  interpretation of 11.1.

  I won't insist on that interpretation.

>>    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

  IE 6 does not support XHTML. This has nothing to do with the DOCTYPE,
  and everything to do with the content-type. 

  Serve XHTML 1.0 Transitional with the content type
  "application/xhtml+xml" and you'll get a download prompt - or rather:
  *I* got one when trying this with IE 6 / Win 98 / default settings.

  The link you are referring to outlines how to get IE 6 to use the CSS
  box model instead of it's own hack, and nothing to do with making it
  accept XHTML as XHTML and not tag-soup HTML.

>>   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.

  Note the word "widely" in your own comment. XHTML 1.0 is "supported"
  in that user-agents treat it as tag-soupy HTML. XHTML 1.1 is supported
  by Gecko-based UAs, Safari, and iCab (afaik).

  Is XHTML supported ? Yes. Is XHTML more accessible ? No. It providesno
  more and no less structure than properly written HTML, and fails
  spectacularly in several popular UAs, including IE. (yes, I am talking
  about XHTML 1.1)
 -    Tina Holmboe                    Greytower Technologies
   tina@greytower.net                http://www.greytower.net/
   [+46] 0708 557 905
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 12:01:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:16 UTC