- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 09:20:00 +0000
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:21:34 +0100, Jesper Tverskov <jesper.tverskov@mail.tele.dk> wrote: > W3C uses XHTML as text/html on their homepage and for "HTML Validator", > "CSS Validator", "Quality Assurance at W3C", and for hundreds of other > webpages at their website. The W3C web pages are no paragon of virtue, and are certainly not examples of great web-authoring techniques - they're freed from having to actually deliver results to their customers - they have no customers. > They would probably only do that because XHTML served as text/html poses > close to no problems to any browser in the real world, and have not done > so for several years. However it gives huge QA jobs, because you can't rely on formal validation, but have to rely on "what works" because all valid XHTML can't be served as text/html, People may feel that they have the QA and the accessibility and the product marketing and the development resources to use XHTML send as text/html, but those of us in the real world would rather leave validating are our mark-up to what can be mechanically tested so we can use our valuable human QA and development time on more important accessibility problems. There is simply nothing wrong with HTML 4.01, and example descriptions like the ones on smackthemouse earlier in the thread which specifically encourage people to violate RFC 2616 are terrible, stop encouraging people to break standards. Jim.
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2005 09:20:02 UTC