|
|
Posted by Ashmodai on 06/19/05 03:43
Andy Dingley scribbled something along the lines of:
> On Wed, 25 May 2005 12:34:47 +0100, "Richard Quick"
> <richard.quick@chocolatemagazine.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>the client has specified that they want xhtml 1.1 that
>>validates AAA with Bobby.
>
>
> Upgrade the client. Teach them why 1.1 is a bad idea. Even if you must
> go for XHTML 1.0, 1.1 is a terrible idea these days and for the
> forseeable future.
>
> Secondly educate them on why Bobby is so broken as to be barely useful
> as a measure of accessibility.
>
> Mainly though, I'd ditch 1.1 in favour of 1.0 strict.
>
I wouldn't say XHTML 1.1 is harmful, IF the browser is capable of
processing the right MIME type.
If you want to stick to XHTML 1.1 (with an XHTML MIME type, i.e.
application/xhtml+xml), I'd recommend a degree of browser sniffing
(sniff for explicit support of that MIME type -- MSIE claims it supports
anything, so wildcards can be ignored -- and yes, I know sniffing is
considered a Bad Thing) and sending a HTML 4.01 Strict representation --
which is easily possible with server-side scripting (if the markup is
authored appropriately, a generic search-and-replace can turn an XHTML
1.1 valid page into a HTML 4.01 Strict valid one without problems) -- if
the MIME type is not (explicitly) supported.
If you are not going to change the MIME type accordingly or can't
provide a HTML 4.01 Strict representation, ditch XHTML altogether.
Educate your client in regards to XHTML support in browsers (MSIE
doesn't support XHTML, its tagsoup processor merely allows it to guess
at XHTML passed to it with the HTML MIME type text/html) and why XHTML
isn't currently any superior to HTML in the real world.
XHTML Transitional (because Strict would be heresy in this case) with an
HTML MIME type is not much better than using non-standard HTML with an
HTML MIME type.
If you need to use an HTML MIME type, use HTML markup too.
--
Ashmo
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|