- From: Terry Dean <Terry.Dean@chariot.net.au>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:02:59 +0930
- To: "'David Dorward'" <david@dorward.me.uk>
- Cc: <www-validator@w3.org>
Hi David, I made the decision to use XHTML over HTML 4.01 because there's no rule to say you shouldn't and partly because I see it as forward thinking. I'm saying that based on what I read in the XHTML FAQ which implies that its ok to send XHTML as text/html: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#texthtml But my question is specifically aimed at whether valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional code is acceptable for accessibility standards or are you saying that unless you use XHTML 1.0 Strict! or HTML 4.01 Strict! that we should not be claiming conformance with regards to accessibility (here again I accept that validation alone is not the only requirement). The specifications appear to be ambiguous to me, the word Transitional implies that it is an interim solution designed for backwards compatibility or legacy browsers. This might not be the list to pose this question so I will ask the WAI to clarify this. Thanks, Terry Dean -----Original Message----- on Sunday, 19 June 2005 11:06 PM, David Dorward wrote: So my advice is to stick to Strict (I'd also suggest sticking to HTML 4.01 unless you really had a need for XHTML on the client side - which most don't). > Especially if you are claiming to create totally accessible web sites? I'd suggest you asked the WAI about that ... if there wasn't currently a big argument brewing over whether or not validity should be an accessibility checkpoint at all. David Dorward
Received on Sunday, 19 June 2005 15:33:11 UTC