|
Posted by Gιrard Talbot on 01/19/06 22:53
Marc wrote :
> Also, I found this article:
> http://www.yourhtmlsource.com/accessibility/xhtmlexplained.html - which
> I have taken an excerpt from and pasted below. Would anyone care to
> comment?
>
> "The benefits of adopting XHTML now or migrating your existing site to
> the new standards are many. First of all, they ensure excellent
> forward-compatibility for your creations.
Forward-compatibility for your XHTML creations.
Some parts of the XHTML 2 spec, as of right now (7th draft version), are
not supposed to be backward-compatible with XHTML 1.0. So there you have
it. More proof? Go to this exact url:
http://www.yourhtmlsource.com/accessibility/xhtmlexplained.html
and then read in the right column these words:
"XHTML 2 won't come into operation for a while yet, not least because it
is not designed to be backwards-compatible (...)"
So, as of right now, your XHTML 1.0 page might (will?) have to be
re-written one day.
Again, that page shows another blatant contradiction.
XHTML is the new set of
> standards that the web will be built on in the years to come, so
> future-proofing your work early will save you much trouble later on.
> Future browser versions might stop supporting deprecated elements from
> old HTML drafts, and so many old basic-HTML sites may start displaying
> incorrectly and unpredictably.
deprecated?
The article itself, the one which was promoting XHTML, was and still is
using deprecated attributes:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yourhtmlsource.com%2Faccessibility%2Fxhtmlexplained.html&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=XHTML+1.0+Strict&verbose=1
[snipped]
> A well-written XHTML page is more accessible than an old style HTML
> page, and is guaranteed to work in any standards-compliant browser
> (which the latest round have finally become) due to the insistence on
> rules and sticking to accepted W3C specifications.
Even WCAG 2.0 states the opposite. Validity does not ensure
accessibility. Even WCAG 2.0 Level 1 compliance will not require validity.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2005/06/validity-accessibility.html
"It's the tools that need to be fixed and the developers and authors
that need to upgrade their skills, not the guidelines that should be
dumbed down."
http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200506/validity_and_accessibility/
GΓ©rard
--
remove blah to email me
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|