XHTML/HTML/Standards Conformance was Re: [WSG] Accessible - Standard Compliant - Club Membership System
David Dorward wrote: On 14 Sep 2007, at 10:37, David Little wrote: Well ... HTML 5 is being developed so XHTML is likely not the future, I was under the impression that you'll also be able to write HTML 5 in XHTML syntax (as XHTML 5, obviously different from XHTML 2 which is a different concept?). They are still planning this, but the point is that HTML is not dead, (real) XHTML is still badly supported among user agents, and support for other namespaces mixed with XHTML (which is the only major benefit for it on the client side) is even worse. While exploring the standards compliance/XHTML/HTML issue, I was surprised by the variation in the display of Alt text. On the small sample, the XHTML/HTML did not seem to make a jot of difference. The screen shots are available at http://www.ramin.com.au/linux/html-strawpolls.shtml If anyone would like to send me screenshots of other browsers/operating systems/combinations of the two pages, I will add them, with a specific acknowledgement or no identification/acknowledgement as the contributer would like. Marghanita -- Marghanita da Cruz http://www.ramin.com.au Phone: (+61)0414 869202 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: XHTML/HTML/Standards Conformance was Re: [WSG] Accessible - Standard Compliant - Club Membership System
Marghanita da Cruz While exploring the standards compliance/XHTML/HTML issue, I was surprised by the variation in the display of Alt text. On the small sample, the XHTML/HTML did not seem to make a jot of difference. The screen shots are available at http://www.ramin.com.au/linux/html-strawpolls.shtml I'm not quite sure what correlation you're trying to find here...the doctype an author uses and the default behaviour of browsers should be two completely separate things. P Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor Enterprise Development University of Salford Room 113, Faraday House Salford, Greater Manchester M5 4WT UK T +44 (0) 161 295 4779 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.salford.ac.uk A GREATER MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: XHTML/HTML/Standards Conformance was Re: [WSG] Accessible - Standard Compliant - Club Membership System
Patrick Lauke wrote: Marghanita da Cruz While exploring the standards compliance/XHTML/HTML issue, I was surprised by the variation in the display of Alt text. On the small sample, the XHTML/HTML did not seem to make a jot of difference. The screen shots are available at http://www.ramin.com.au/linux/html-strawpolls.shtml I'm not quite sure what correlation you're trying to find here...the doctype an author uses and the default behaviour of browsers should be two completely separate things. snip Patrick, In the strawpoll, I set out to guage the level of Browser/Platform support and compliance for compliant XHTML and HTML4 webpages. I thought XHTML/HTML may have been a variable in how webpages look and behave in different browsers. The sample on the above page is by no means complete. Along the way, I was surprised by the variation in how the Alt text is displayed. My interest in the Alt text is in being able to provide visitors (who are perhaps using a mobile phone) with fully functional text only webpages. I am not sure if the variety of handling of Alt text effects accessibility via screen readers etc. Marghanita -- Marghanita da Cruz http://www.ramin.com.au Phone: (+61)0414 869202 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible - Standard Compliant - Club Membership System
On 13 Sep 2007, at 23:09, S.R. Emerson wrote: Is there a particular reason you have specified XHTML? So it is upgradeable for the future. Well ... HTML 5 is being developed so XHTML is likely not the future, converting from HTML 4.01 to XHTML 1.0 isn't difficult anyway, and Appendix C is something of a pain. I wouldn't look so far to a possible (and increasingly unlikely) future at the expense of the present. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible - Standard Compliant - Club Membership System
On 14 Sep 2007, at 10:37, David Little wrote: Well ... HTML 5 is being developed so XHTML is likely not the future, I was under the impression that you'll also be able to write HTML 5 in XHTML syntax (as XHTML 5, obviously different from XHTML 2 which is a different concept?). They are still planning this, but the point is that HTML is not dead, (real) XHTML is still badly supported among user agents, and support for other namespaces mixed with XHTML (which is the only major benefit for it on the client side) is even worse. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible - Standard Compliant - Club Membership System
Well ... HTML 5 is being developed so XHTML is likely not the future, I was under the impression that you'll also be able to write HTML 5 in XHTML syntax (as XHTML 5, obviously different from XHTML 2 which is a different concept?). This might not be the case of course -- could anyone shed any light on this, or is this still an unknown? Cheers, David On 14/09/2007, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 13 Sep 2007, at 23:09, S.R. Emerson wrote: Is there a particular reason you have specified XHTML? So it is upgradeable for the future. Well ... HTML 5 is being developed so XHTML is likely not the future, converting from HTML 4.01 to XHTML 1.0 isn't difficult anyway, and Appendix C is something of a pain. I wouldn't look so far to a possible (and increasingly unlikely) future at the expense of the present. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- David Little -e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -w: www.littled.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible - Standard Compliant - Club Membership System
David Dorward wrote: I was under the impression that you'll also be able to write HTML 5 in XHTML syntax (as XHTML 5, obviously different from XHTML 2 which is a different concept?). They are still planning this, but the point is that HTML is not dead, (real) XHTML is still badly supported among user agents, and support for other namespaces mixed with XHTML (which is the only major benefit for it on the client side) is even worse. HTML5 or the XMLised equivalent are... equivalent, and I'd say so much so that internal publishing needs should override the choice between the two. By this I mean consider what the CMS software you prefer, or whatever your publishing cycles demands. There are many, many (many) more XML processing and publishing tools than HTML tools (due to the predictable syntax), and it's easier to integrate XHTML into publishing flows, but it of course your internal publishing needs will vary. .Matthew Cruickshank http://docvert.org/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible - Standard Compliant - Club Membership System
Yes, but it's nowhere near completion or indeed absolute that it will go ahead anyway. So, there's no point in lowering your standards until you have to. On Fri, September 14, 2007 10:14 am, David Dorward wrote: Well ... HTML 5 is being developed so XHTML is likely not the future, converting from HTML 4.01 to XHTML 1.0 isn't difficult anyway, and Appendix C is something of a pain. I wouldn't look so far to a possible (and increasingly unlikely) future at the expense of the present. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible - Standard Compliant - Club Membership System
S.R. Emerson wrote: Does any one have a recommendation on a club management system that: 1. is accessible. 2. Uses XHTML. Is there a particular reason you have specified XHTML? 3. Does not use tables preferably. 4. Supports separate departments based on location. 5. Each location head can modify the pages applicable to their location. Thanks for any input you can provide. S.R. Emerson Accrete Web Solutions *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Marghanita da Cruz http://www.ramin.com.au Phone: (+61)0414 869202 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible - Standard Compliant - Club Membership System
Is there a particular reason you have specified XHTML? So it is upgradeable for the future. S.R. Emerson Accrete Web Solutions *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
