- From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 07:42:05 +0100
- To: RYAN CLARK <st1009254@craven-college.ac.uk>
- CC: www-validator@w3.org
On 21/5/09 11:48, RYAN CLARK wrote: > Are you aware that your w3c.org site that is supposed to set the > guidelines does not follow them itself? It is coded to be compliant with > xhtml 1.0 but not to the current standard of xhtml 1.1. What W3C guideline says web authors must use one standard (XHTML 1.1) rather than another standard (XHTML 1.0), regardless of their technical needs (such as text/html compatibility)? On the contrary, the W3C XHTML FAQ suggests some technical advantages of XHTML but makes it clear that if you want compatibility with "legacy browsers" you need to stick with XHTML 1.0: "XHTML 1.0 was carefully designed so that with care it would also work on legacy HTML user agents as well." "XHTML 1.1 is pure XML, and only intended to be XML. It cannot reliably be sent to legacy browsers." http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#need By not using XHTML 1.1 to exclude the majority of web users (who are using browsers that don't support XHTML served as XML), W3C is setting a good example of choosing a standard that fits their actual requirements, that is, communicating with and servicing a broad audience. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Friday, 22 May 2009 06:42:48 UTC