You are here: Re: XHTML or HTML 4 ? « HTML « IT news, forums, messages
Re: XHTML or HTML 4 ?

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]


УдалСнная Ρ€Π°Π±ΠΎΡ‚Π° для программистов  •  Как Π·Π°Ρ€Π°Π±ΠΎΡ‚Π°Ρ‚ΡŒ Π½Π° Google AdSense  •  England, UK  •  ΡΡ‚Π°Ρ‚ΡŒΠΈ Π½Π° английском  •  PHP MySQL CMS Apache Oscommerce  •  Online Business Knowledge Base  •  DVD MP3 AVI MP4 players codecs conversion help
Home  •  Search  •  Site Map  •  Set as Homepage  •  Add to Favourites

Copyright © 2005-2006 Powered by Custom PHP Programming

Π‘Π°ΠΉΡ‚ ΠΈΠ·Π³ΠΎΡ‚ΠΎΠ²Π»Π΅Π½ Π² Π‘Ρ‚ΡƒΠ΄ΠΈΠΈ Π’Π°Π»Π΅Π½Ρ‚ΠΈΠ½Π° ΠŸΠ΅Ρ‚Ρ€ΡƒΡ‡Π΅ΠΊΠ°
ΠΈΠ·Π³ΠΎΡ‚ΠΎΠ²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π΄Π΅Ρ€ΠΆΠΊΠ° Π²Π΅Π±-сайтов, Ρ€Π°Π·Ρ€Π°Π±ΠΎΡ‚ΠΊΠ° ΠΏΡ€ΠΎΠ³Ρ€Π°ΠΌΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ обСспСчСния, поисковая оптимизация