Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
Interesting. But this lacks one important thing: a clear indication of
why some page doesn't qualify as accessible. Google seems reluctant to
disclose their criteria, and it's a pity.
Indeed, and, from the broad indications they do give, there's /nothing/
to suggest
Indeed, and, from the broad indications they do give, there's /nothing/
to suggest that they favour conformant markup over non-conformant
markup: Currently we take into account several factors, including a
given page's simplicity, how much visual imagery it carries and whether
or not its primary
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:03:23 +0100, Rimantas Liubertas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Make sure that your TITLE and ALT tags ...
Tags... Right.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
http://www.opera.com/
Make sure that your TITLE and ALT tags ...
Tags... Right.
ha ha, good catch, how did I miss this one...
Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:49:24 +0600, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think basic conformance is part and parcel of creating an accessible,
interoperable site; but it's worth noting that there are plenty of
captains of accessibility who reject that viewpoint, e.g.:
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
They do mention validation:
http://www.anysurfer.be/fr/obtenir-label/procedures-de-labellisation/la-validation/
-- though I'm not sure they mean ensuring valid HTML.
I'm afraid they mean validating to /their/ accessibility standards, not
the (X)HTML
On Dec 7, 2006, at 7:47 PM, Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 05:09:44 +0600, Mike Schinkel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And if these corporations were using content management systems that
didn't produce standards-based code, you can bet those CMS vendors
would soon have a new #1
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 13:01:01 +0600, Matthew Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Personally, I would *love* Google to do this sort of thing. I just
have no hope for it.
http://labs.google.com/accessible/
Interesting. But this lacks one important thing: a clear indication of why some
page
On Dec 4, 2006, at 6:56 AM, Shadow2531 wrote:
...
Firefox could do the same with the yellow bar that pops up at the top
of the page that says, The document appears to be XHTML, but is not
well formed. Firefox has reparsed it as HTML for you in an attempt to
handle the errors., or something like
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
Personally, I would *love* Google to do this sort of thing. I
just have no hope for it.
When then, wouldn't it at least make some sense to find the right person in
hopes they might say yes? Anyway, I'll add to my backlog list of planned
blogs (it's a long list. :)
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
An interesting idea, but I don't see how Google would benefit from this.
1.) If the web get cleaner, it's easier for search engines to inspect
documents
2.) If Google doesn't benefit from a better web, why would they pay Ian to
edit the HTML5 spec?
On the other hand,
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 05:09:44 +0600, Mike Schinkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And if these corporations were using content management systems that didn't
produce standards-based code, you can bet those CMS vendors would soon have
a new #1 priority, but fast. And THAT would clean up the web
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 03:42:38 +0600, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What should be the most damning of all is that I found an example on the most
prominent page on the mozilla.org site. No one can say that the authors of
that page didn't make a conscious choice in the DOCTYPE for that page.
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 10:00:06 +0600, Mike Schinkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And as I write this email, it's finally come to me one method that would
work for even the most clueless and apathetic of web publishers: What if
Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft Live were to display a human-readable
Henri Sivonen wrote:
At this point, it is important to realize that
pro-XHTML advocacy
Who are the pro-XHTML advocates; those one who want divergence, or those who
want HTML5 to interoperate with XHTML as much as possible?
This reasoning is then applied to XHTML
served as text/html. This
Mike Schinkel wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
I'll name the difference of XHTML_all and XHTML_compatible as
XHTML_incompatible. Lachlan gave examples that indicate that
XHTML_incompatible is not empty.
I'm sorry but may I please ask for a reference? I unfortunately don't
know where to find that
Mike Schinkel wrote:
Hmm. I believe the http standard states that clients are not suppose to
override a content-type given by a server. For example, a web page showing a
script virus shouldn't be identified by the client as a script and executed;
the client should instead just display it as a
On 12/4/06, Mike Schinkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shadow2531:
Sounds like you are in agreement. But can I ask you to summarized what you'd
propose?
Not sure if I can summarize, but I can be more specific by example.
Example browser preferences:
(Default value is first value)
[Markup
Hi Mike,
Ian outlines why sending XHTML as HTML is harmful in his article at:
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
On 03/12/2006, at 4:51 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote:
The following are honest questions, not rhetorical baiting.
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Use XHTML, send it with an HTML MIME type, and be
Thanks for the detailed reply.
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
4.) Currently offering a CMS/web app generates HTML(4)
using string concatonation, with plans to move it to XHTML
5.) Currently offering a CMS/web app generates HTML(4) and
XHTML both using string concatonation
As Henri has
Mike Schinkel wrote:
Sounds like we need content-types determined by inspection on web servers?
(which would really slow-down serving pages, unless they could be cached,
but with so much dynamic generated content that doesn't seem realistic...)
No, I don;t think so. There's nothing wrong with
On Dec 3, 2006, at 11:00, Mike Schinkel wrote:
All I've heard is that people are saying and doing things that are
incorrect. That means you are assuming that, above all else,
whatever people
say and do must be correct. In this specific case, I challenge that
assumption. I think the results
On Dec 3, 2006, at 14:54, Henri Sivonen wrote:
(which leads them to waste time on finding out the truth the hard
way).
Which is *bad*.
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
On 2006-12-02 17:42, Elliotte Harold wrote:
First of all, I believe there was only ever one parser that
implemented all of the SGML specification, SP from James Clark.
Nope, not even SP implemented the whole standard, e.g. not DATATAG and
CONCUR, see http://jclark.com/sp/features.htm.
Just
Thanks for the link.
Serdar Kilic wrote:
Ian outlines why sending XHTML as HTML is harmful in his article at:
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
Thanks for the link. Give me a chance to digest it. :)
-Mike Schinkel
http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/
http://www.welldesignedurls.org/
Elliotte Harold wrote:
Mike Schinkel wrote:
Sounds like we need content-types determined by inspection
on web servers?(which would really slow-down serving pages,
unless they could be cached, but with so much dynamic
generated content that doesn't seem realistic...)
No, I don;t think
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Mike Schinkel wrote:
You don't need to do one or the other. It's just up to you which you
do. Neither is better or worse than the other. They are equivalent,
neither is deprecated, There's no reason to try and do both.
If, as you say one is as good as the
Elliotte Harold wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
HTML and XML have significantly different parsing requirements and
they absolutely must be treated as significantly different file
formats. Any attempt to treat them as the same format is an extremely
bad idea.
That's only true to the extent that
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
HTML 2.0 to 4.01 documents could, in the same way you're insisting on
using XML tools on the back end, be reliably parsed using SGML tools.
Surely you jest. First of all, I believe there was only ever one parser
that implemented all of the SGML specification, SP from
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
The Yellow Screen of Death is about as annoying as you can get. I
really don't understand how you can go on about the benefits of XML
because it requires well-formedness, but then turn around and say XML
can be served as text/html which just makes all your arguments null
Henri Sivonen wrote:
Elliotte Harold wrote:
What I don't understand is why some members of this working group is
so dead set on actively preventing HTML from being XML. The non-
draconian error handling I understand. But why are you disappointed
that !DOCTYPE html is well-formed XML?
://www.welldesignedurls.org/
-Original Message-
From: Ian Hickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 3:48 AM
To: Mike Schinkel
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [whatwg] Allow trailing slash in always-empty HTML5 elements?
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Mike Schinkel wrote:
You don't need
The following are honest questions, not rhetorical baiting.
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Use XHTML, send it with an HTML MIME type, and be happy.
No!
Why not? What's wrong with doing that?
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
In many more cases, an HTML document or even an
XHTML 1.0 as text/html document
Mike Schinkel wrote:
So what guidance would you publish after HTML5 is released with regards to
people in each of the following situations:
Note: Where I refer to outputting HTML below, I assume the use of
text/html. Where I refer to outputting XHTML below, I assume the use of
an XML MIME
On Dec 1, 2006, at 04:15, Michel Fortin wrote:
that their valid XHTML1 documents served as text/html, when updated
to XHTML5, are now called valid HTML5 documents by the validator.
Except:
* xmlns is illegal in HTML5.
* xml:lang vs. lang.
* base vs. xml:base.
* meta http-equiv... vs.
2006/12/1, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...
An example of something that is NOT implemented interoperably is
script src=.../.
As far as I can tell, script/ is handled by all browsers the same way as
script. How is it not interoperable?
That's true, however, what happens depends on the
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
As far as I can tell, script/ is handled by all browsers the same
way as script. How is it not interoperable?
That's true, however, what happens depends on the browser and presence
of /script in the code.
Right, the interoperability
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Mike Schinkel wrote:
1.) I read the FAQ http://blog.whatwg.org/faq/ and it seemed to imply
that HTML 5 and XHTML where not at odds with each other? Did I
misread that, because from comments on this thread I get the
impression that might not be the case.
2.) A
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Mike Schinkel wrote:
1.) I read the FAQ http://blog.whatwg.org/faq/ and it seemed to imply
that HTML 5 and XHTML where not at odds with each other? Did I misread
that, because from comments on this thread I get the impression that
might not be
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Mike Schinkel wrote:
Even though they are both serializations, the vast majority of people
producing HTML/XHTML are not doing it by serializing, they are doing it
by string concatonation and merging templates. Unfortunately, no matter
how much it's lamented that this
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
HTML and XML have significantly different parsing requirements
and they absolutely must be treated as significantly different
file formats. Any attempt to treat them as the same format is
an extremely bad idea.
...
This is why the spec is defined in terms of the DOM,
On Nov 30, 2006, at 00:18, James Graham wrote:
I tentatively support the idea that trailing slashes on
singleton[1] elements should not be a parse error.
Me, too, and I'm past the tentative phase.
I don't think it has any actual technical merit
OTOH, the blog.whatwg.org WordPress
Henri Sivonen wrote:
I don't think it has any actual technical merit
OTOH, the blog.whatwg.org WordPress lipsticking drill was a total waste
of time from a technical point of view. It was purely about public
relations and politics.
As an alternative to being perceived as a lipsticking
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:51:36 +0100, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It has to allow two authoring syntaxes. One HTML and one XML. I thought
we were past that discussion?
I fully expected my proposal to either be bounced immediately as sheer
lunacy, or for someone to quickly point to the
Hi All:
Being new to this list, I've been following this thread with interest and
have some questions and comments:
As for my questions:
1.) I read the FAQ http://blog.whatwg.org/faq/ and it seemed to imply that
HTML 5 and XHTML where not at odds with each other? Did I misread that,
because
The sense I am gathering is that the proposal is not obviously insane, and
in fact is a bit novel in that such a narrowly scoped adoption of XML syntax
-- i.e., only to the extent that it both reflects the web as widely
practiced and only to the extent that doing such does not introduce
ambiguity
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:14:03 +0100, Hallvord R M Steen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW, it sounds sane to me to align validation as much as possible
with the UA parsing in a way that issues that aren't really problems
for the UA aren't flagged as invalid. Closing slash on void elements
sounds
On Nov 30, 2006, at 14:15, Sam Ruby wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
I don't think it has any actual technical merit
OTOH, the blog.whatwg.org WordPress lipsticking drill was a total
waste of time from a technical point of view. It was purely about
public relations and politics.
As an
Hi,
From: Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think basically the argument is it would help people and the counter
argument is it would confuse people. We need evidence to back up these
arguments so we can make a solid decision. The only relevant data I have
is that 50% of the web uses trailing
On 30/11/06, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Closing slash on void elements
sounds like a good example of this is invalid because we're sticking
to our fixed ideas[1] rather than this is invalid for technical
reasons like causing ambiguities in DOM parsing. So I support Sam's
On 11/30/06, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/30/06, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It has to allow two authoring syntaxes. One HTML and one XML. I thought we
were past that discussion?
The sense I am gathering is that the proposal is not obviously insane, and
in fact is a
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 17:16 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Without labels, I do think that regardless of how the HTML5 spec
turns out, WordPress has an architectural flaw in its methodology of
producing markup. Since the flaw is in the architecture, I am not
optimistic of it getting fixed
2006/11/30, Hallvord R M Steen:
Well, nothing per the parsing section causes ambiguities in DOM parsing
(assuming I understand what that means). So I'm not sure what you're
suggesting.
It's the core of the debate, namely if img / isn't technically a
problem why are validators required to
Hallvord R M Steen wrote:
It's the core of the debate, namely if img / isn't technically a
problem why are validators required to flag it as invalid? The counter
examples are comparisons with div / which isn't parsed into the DOM
most would expect when sent as HTML, and corner cases like
base
base href=http://example.org/bar/
Just require quotes around attribute values like
HTML should have done 15 years ago.
You can require all that you want but we have to specify how to
parse content that is out there with this exact error. Anyway, this
discussion is really about validation.
Le 30 nov. 2006 à 10:16, Henri Sivonen a écrit :
Without labels, I do think that regardless of how the HTML5 spec
turns out, WordPress has an architectural flaw in its methodology
of producing markup. Since the flaw is in the architecture, I am
not optimistic of it getting fixed in
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 15:21 -0500, Elliotte Harold wrote:
That's only plausible if [...] All browsers that accept XHTML served as
text/html accept XHTML
served as application/xhtml+xml.
This isn't required at all. All we really need is content
transformation. If systems like WordPress start
On Nov 30, 2006, at 21:48, Michel Fortin wrote:
The best way someone could fix the resulting tag soup would
probably be to pass the result through HTML Tidy. And it should be
pretty straightforward since the tidy library has been part of PHP
since version 5.
I noticed, but it is not
On Nov 30, 2006, at 17:57, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 17:16 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Without labels, I do think that regardless of how the HTML5 spec
turns out, WordPress has an architectural flaw in its methodology of
producing markup. Since the flaw is in the
On 11/30/06, Michel Fortin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We can't really have a document that is both HTML5 and XHTML5 at the
same time if we keep the !DOCTYPE HTML declaration however.
Why not?
- Sam Ruby
Trailing slashes in void elements are clearly unnecessary from a syntactic point
of view, but I think it can be argued that allowing them actually makes HTML
more internally consistent.
Current versions of HTML allow many unnecessary closing tags to be omitted
(e.g., /p), and for authors
Le 30 nov. 2006 à 16:46, Sam Ruby a écrit :
On 11/30/06, Michel Fortin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We can't really have a document that is both HTML5 and XHTML5 at the
same time if we keep the !DOCTYPE HTML declaration however.
Why not?
It seems I was mistaken about that. I was pretty sure
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Sam Ruby wrote:
In HTML5, there are a number of elements with a content model of empty: area,
base, br, col, command, embed, hr, img, link, meta, and param.
If HTML5 were changed so that these elements -- and these elements alone --
permitted an optional trailing
Mike Schinkel wrote:
1.) I read the FAQ http://blog.whatwg.org/faq/ and it seemed to imply that
HTML 5 and XHTML where not at odds with each other? Did I misread that,
because from comments on this thread I get the impression that might not be
the case.
2.) A similar question, but is the
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 16:20 -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
I believe that I could modify my weblog to be simultaneously both
HTML5 and XHTML5 compliant, modulo the embedded SVG content, something
that would needs to be discussed separately.
I think having /two/ different serializations of Web Forms
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 16:20 -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
I believe that I could modify my weblog to be simultaneously both
HTML5 and XHTML5 compliant, modulo the embedded SVG content, something
that would needs to be discussed separately.
I think having /two/ different
Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/29/06, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not think it's a good idea to make the trailing slash conforming.
Although it is harmless, it provides no additional benefit at all and it
creates the false impression that the syntax actually
On Nov 28, 2006, at 23:20, Sam Ruby wrote:
In HTML5, there are a number of elements with a content model of
empty: area, base, br, col, command, embed, hr, img, link, meta,
and param.
If HTML5 were changed so that these elements -- and these elements
alone -- permitted an optional
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
In HTML5, there are a number of elements with a content model of
empty: area, base, br, col, command, embed, hr, img, link, meta, and
param.
If HTML5 were changed so that these elements -- and these elements
alone -- permitted an optional trailing slash
To me, '/' or '/' mean the tag's done. Therefore, 'select
/.../select' (or anything similar) is just plain wrong -- that would be a
select list with nothing in it, then some options that are hanging out
somewhere on their own, then an unmatched closing select. This shouldn't
validate,
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:15:53 +0100, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I do not think it's a good idea to make the trailing slash conforming.
Although it is harmless, it provides no additional benefit at all and
it creates the false impression that the syntax actually does something.
The
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:15:53 +0100, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Is there really any excuse for allowing biOMG!/b/i? No, but
HTML5 is willing to pinch its nose with thumb and forefinger and look
the other way. It literally is not a battle worth fighting.
Just like b / that causes a
Le Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:00:46 +0200, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] a
écrit:
On 11/29/06, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not think it's a good idea to make the trailing slash conforming.
Although it is harmless, it provides no additional benefit at all and it
creates the false
On 11/29/06, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:10:10 +0100, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps it would be better to prove that the current rules result in
easy explanations. What would the text of a bug filed on WordPress
look like? Let's assume you
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:10:10 +0100, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps it would be better to prove that the current rules result in
easy explanations. What would the text of a bug filed on WordPress
look like? Let's assume you actually want them to fix it,
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:29:42 +0100, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The bug would request that Wordpress doesn't try to output XML for the
text/html media type. That seems to be the problem here.
Ok, so what would the text be? What problem would you tell them you were
fixing?
I won't
On 11/29/06, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:29:42 +0100, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The bug would request that Wordpress doesn't try to output XML for the
text/html media type. That seems to be the problem here.
Ok, so what would the text be?
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:31:19 +0100, Mihai Sucan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
XML parsers break if the code has no trailing slashes where needed, the
majority of HTML parsers do not break if the author uses trailing
slashes.
Some web developers also make use, on the server, of XHTML and XML
...
The trailing slash issue should be inexistent. Today many sites use this
trailing slash in HTML pages. Even if those pages do not validate today, I
consider they should validate, as long as they validate without the
trailing slashes.
...
I don't think that page claiming to be authored as
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Robert Sayre wrote:
So far, WHAT-WG members have failed to write a one or two paragraph bug
report in clear English, with the target being the relatively advanced
HTML authors working on WordPress. Can it be done?
Please use HTML4 instead of XHTML1 in the output from
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
What do you mean with implemented interoperably?
produce the same DOM
- Sam Ruby
Mihai Sucan wrote:
Web developers want to be able to share code between XHTML and HTML
projects.
Yes, some web developers want to do stupid things. If you want to share
data between HTML and XHTML, then do it properly. Parse it in one form
and re-serialise it in the other. Don't just use
On 11/29/06, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I have submitted a bug report.
http://trac.wordpress.org/ticket/3406
Let's see what happens.
Well, that didn't seem too effective. :/
--
Robert Sayre
Sorry for being the dunce here, but is anybody saying otherwise? Whereas
XML _requires_ that you close every tag, HTML5 _should allow_ you to close
any tag. I agree with what was said previously about considering something
like 'select //select' invalid, but if somebody's suggesting that
Lachlan Hunt schrieb:
...
The fact is that authors already try things like div/, p/ and even
a/. I've seen all of those examples in the wild. See, for instance,
the source of the XML 1.0 spec (and many others) which claim to be XHTML
as text/html, littered with plenty of a/ tags all
Thanks Ian - so is it fair to say that self-closing singletons should be
_allowed_ but not _required_ -- that either syntax would be accepted as
valid HTML5? That only makes sense to me -- it's backward-compatible while
allowing XHTML compatibility as well.
Your point about 'p /test' being the
Anne van Kesteren schrieb:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:03:33 +0100, Julian Reschke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact is that authors already try things like div/, p/ and
even a/. I've seen all of those examples in the wild. See, for
instance, the source of the XML 1.0 spec (and many others) which
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Leons Petrazickis wrote:
This rigmarole is going to repeat on every site that has converted to
XHTML sent as text/html. People are emotionally invested in the idea of
trailing slashes. Websites have complex codebases, and going through
them removing
On 11/29/06, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/29/06, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I have submitted a bug report.
http://trac.wordpress.org/ticket/3406
Let's see what happens.
Well, that didn't seem too effective. :/
Ah, if you visit now, you'll find a WHAT-WG
In response to a weblog post of mine[1], Ian stated[2]:
we can’t make trailing “/” characters meaningful — it would
change how about 49% of the Web is parsed
Just to make sure that we are talking about the same thing, let me make
a much more carefully scoped proposal.
In HTML5, there
90 matches
Mail list logo
