- From: Gez Lemon <gl@juicystudio.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:58:08 -0000
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi Jesper, > Let me start by once again reminding the list that > Gez and http://juicystudio.com also serves > application/xhtml+xml to browsers understanding it. > > We only disagree about what to serve to the rest, IE, > Lynx, old browsers, etc. Or rather: I accept both > solutions and said so in my last mail. This isn't what I was objecting to. If it were, we would disagree on more than what to serve user agents that do not understand application/xhtml+xml; we would also disagree on what you should send those that do support that MIME type. Whether or not I use content negotiation is also irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. > But if it works for you do it. In my last mail I even called > that practice for nice. It is not fair when you say: "why do > you want to persecute people" I apologise if that is unfair. If I can refer you back to the part I was objecting to: > WCAG 11.1 says: > > "Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for > a task and use the latest versions when supported." [Priority 2] > > Since is has been possible for several years to serve XHTML as > XML to browsers understanding it, I would say that one can't > claim Conformance Level "Double-A" if one is just using HTML. This is the part I object to. XHTML isn't properly supported by the majority of current user agents at this moment in time, so I fail to see why developers should not be able to claim Double-A if they produce valid HTML that adheres to all priority 1 and priority 2 checkpoints. I hope that's clarified my stand on the issue. Best regards, Gez _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 21:54:57 UTC