Re: xhtml valid logo's

Wayne Smith wrote:
 
> Does anyone have any good pointers to statistically rigorous
> research (or at least an attempt) to either support or refute
> that statement?

I vaguely recall that some accessibility guidelines really want
"strict", but I'd doubt that they insist on "XHTML 1.0 strict",
after all that's in essence the same as "HTML 4.01 strict".

I like "XHTML 1.0 transitional" for 'strict accessibility' with
Netscape 3.x, where that makes sense.  In other words I use a
few name=, align=, and similar transitional attributes instead
of the corresponding CSS.

> I might agree that DTD or other Schema validation *per se*
> may not help directly

If the syntax isn't correct (as far as DTD or Schema allow to
check it) it usually has to be fixed before discussing more
ambitious goals.  OTOH "valid XHTML strict" still allows all
display: none + Javascript tricks at odds with any definition
of "accessibility" I'm aware of.

> I don't want to start a flame war.

The topic certainly has a high "troll" factor :-)  But if the
OP tries to create valid "XHTML 1 strict" pages that's a good
idea.  And if what he really wants is "accessibility" he could
use the existing logo with a corresponding alt= text.  Until
Jukka tells him that these icons are anyway somewhat dubious.

 Frank

Received on Saturday, 12 January 2008 05:27:57 UTC