W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: [XHTML1.1] Error in Conformance Definition document?

From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 07:51:44 +0100
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Cc: "Paul Nelson (ATC)" <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>, www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <1175583104.11604.27.camel@galahad>

On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 20:07 -0500, Shane McCarron wrote:
> I am sympathetic to the idea of a text/html serialization... but we got 
> slapped pretty hard for doing that in XHTML 1.0.  Basically, such a 
> "serialization" ends up being a series of conventions that, if adhered 
> to, will permit well formed, valid XHTML 1.1 content to sort of work in 
> legacy user agents.  Is that what you are looking for?

Indeed not. I mean an alternative serialization that would require some
form of actual transformation, where there are conformance requirements
(/not/ "guidelines") defined for authors and user agents for how that
serialization is created and understood. Whatever WHATWG are creating
for text/html it could hardly be described as a "series of conventions".

My basic concern here is that browser developers should be able to
backport any minor new accessibility updates to XHTML 1.1 without
committing to supporting application/xhtml+xml, for example if tabindex
is expanded to match Microsoft's and Mozilla's implementation. I don't
think such changes are sufficient to force XHTML support by themselves,
but I also don't want to see their use dependent on serving XHTML 1.1 in
a way that only "sort of works".

We don't need an HTML5 from W3C or WHATWG for this task. We need a minor
revision, an HTML 4.5. It could try and fix some of the limitations with
using ARIA with text/html:


If W3C want to drive XML markup adoption, I think there are much better
ways than with XHTML 1.1, such as:

* Better specs and education for mixing multiple markup languages (SMIL,
SVG, XHTML, MathML, etc) together effectively. This is the unique
selling point of XML-based markup from the point of view of content
* Actually registering MIME types for these languages (e.g. where is
* Standardizing transformation methods for backwards compatibility
(XHTML and MathML to HTML4), for example), rather than trying to hack
support through compatibility guidelines.
* Explicitly requiring support for core languages in UAAG (access to
content is an accessibility feature).
* Making XHTML 2 rock.
* More blueskies thinking about more productive authoring tools (Dave
Raggett's working on this, which is good).

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2007 07:17:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:21:02 UTC