Re: Tongue twister

Hi Jules,

I'm not sure I follow your argument. Validators don't set standards. They
just perform basic tests where they can. Both Cynthia Says and Bobby will
pass an XHTML Strict document with an xml:lang attribute.

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">

Best regards.

Gez
_____________________________
Supplement your vitamins
Web: http://www.juicystudio.com
Email: gez@juicystudio.com
Keeping developers informed!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Vallis" <lists@vallis.net>
To: "W3C WAI Interest Group" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 5:06 PM
Subject: Tongue twister


>
> There are a couple of contradictions (tiny and inane ones) between WCAG
1.0 and XHTML specs.
>
> XHTML 1.0 Strict and XHTML 1.1 deprecate LANG attribute (<html
lang="en">), in favour of <html xml:lang="en">.
>
> However WCAG 1.0 specifies:
> 11.1 Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a
task and use the latest versions when supported
> 11.2 Avoid deprecated features of W3C technologies.
>
> Although this is ridiculously pedantic, this basically states you cannot
use XHTML 1.0 Strict or XHTML 1.1 with a WAI compliant site, yet WAI states
you must use the latest technology. I'm only really raising it because the
gizmos like Cynthia Says and Bobby fail a site if you don't have the lang
attributes. I suggest the code is modified to search for just
'lang="<lang>"', whether it is 'lang="en"' or 'xml:lang="en"'.
>
> ATM, in order to 'pass' tests, you have to use XHTML 1.0 Transitional and
put <html lang="en-gb" xml:lang="en-gb">
>
> Personally I think this is all useless anyway, since a global declaration
is really the responsibility of the following META tag:
>
> <meta name="language" content="en-gb" />
>
> The lang or xml:lang attribute should only be used when the language
changes mid-stream as such (assuming the english META had been declared):
>
> <p class="bodyText">The governor of the Bank of England took a <span
xml:lang="fr">laissez-faire</span> attitude to raising interest rates</p>
>
>
> kind regards
>
> Jules
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2003 12:23:10 UTC