- From: <tina@greytower.net>
- Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 15:53:39 +0100 (CET)
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 5 Nov, gez wrote: >> Firstly, it claims to serve text/html[*] - >> I'm looking at the content-type here - but the DOCTYPE >> claims XHTML 1.0 Strict and the *content* claims it is validated to >> XHTML 1.1. > > I assume you've viewed the site with a non-XML user agent such as Internet > Explorer? I can only deliver XHTML 1.1 with a MIME type of You might have misunderstood my point. The content claims conformance to another standard *despite* the content negotiation. May I suggest changing that ? > application/xhtml+xml to XML compliant user agents. To the rest, I serve > XHTML 1.0 Strict with a MIME type of text/html. I'm not a huge fan of > content negotiation, but until user agents catch up, I have no choice. Perhaps HTML 4.01 Strict would be an acceptable alternative. >> Secondly, it claims WCAG 1.0 'AAA' - which, if nothing else, the link >> texts should make clear it is not. When I look through the list of >> links in my UA, I can make neither head nor tail out of "1". > > I aim for level "AAA", and claiming conformance provides feedback that > allows to me change things I've overlooked. You make a fair point about > using numbers for links, as they require the word page before them. I'll > update it. Thanks for your feedback Perhaps "Archive" would be better. >> I think we should all try to be examples. Please ? > > Like greytower.net? :-) Did the mailing-list server clip off the bottom of my mail ? I'm sorry. Are therer any feedback you'd like to give us for the ongoing restoration project of greytower.net ? -- - Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies tina@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/ [+46] 0708 557 905
Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2003 09:53:47 UTC