Re: XHTML/XML some constructive comments required.

On 27 Jun, Christophe Strobbe wrote:

>>   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" 
> ( you can distiguish between XHTML 
> 1.0 documents that follow the HTML Compatibilty 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?

  I am not entirely certain I understand the basis for your question.
  However, I'll try to answer it.

  The list above is an attempt to show how - following standards - the
  various versions of HTML and XHTML function in terms of accessibility

  XHTML 1.0 SHOULD be sent with a content-type of application/xhtml+xml.
  XHTML 1.1 SHOULD be sent with the same.

  However: the latest version of XHTML 1.1 *should not* be sent with a
  content-type of text/html - compatible or not.

> 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, 

  Ah, but XHTML 1.1 has only *one* appropriate media type, though there
  are optionally the generic text/xml and application/xml ones.

> 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 

  The interpretation of 11.1 boils down to "supported". There are
  user-agents in wide-spread use which understands XHTML 1.1 - and even
  more that understand XML and should be able to handle XHTML.

  Other user-agents handle XHTML as slightly tag-soupy HTML. Even
  Netscape 4 swallows XHTML. If, either, XHTML 1.0 or XHTML 1.0 served
  with slight disregard for standards.

  But the original argument was: XHTML is inherently accessible. I
  believe this thread has shown that not only is it no more inherently
  accessible than HTML, but has certain - inherent - difficulties[*]
  that makes it a questionable suggestion and even more questionable

> Finally, why do you consider both HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.1 "the latest 
> versions"?

  They are the most recently released specifications of HTML and XHTML

   Content-types, character sets, DOM ...  
 -    Tina Holmboe                    Greytower Technologies      
   [+46] 0708 557 905

Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 12:15:02 UTC