Re: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Sorry, ended up being a cyclic argument, but you see what I mean...and *that's* what Andy meant (if I may be so bold as to make an educated guess) That's exactly what I meannt. Go for your life :-) Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Ian Fenn wrote: Thanks for that, Douglas. Unfortunately my client has accessibility guidelines that insist the pages are built in XHTML Strict. So what do they believe the accessibility advantages of XHTML Strict are? As far as I'm aware valid and semantically correct HTML is just as accessible as XHTML strict. And I'm guessing they probably aren't serving their pages up as XML so strictly speaking they are serving their pages up as HTML anyway. This kind of pettiness and misunderstanding of accessibility really gets my goat. It's a damn shame if you ask me ;-) Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.com/ p.s. no real goats were harmed in this email ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Hi Andy, So what do they believe the accessibility advantages of XHTML Strict are? As far as I'm aware valid and semantically correct HTML is just as accessible as XHTML strict. And I'm guessing they probably aren't serving their pages up as XML so strictly speaking they are serving their pages up as HTML anyway. Whilst the guidelines contain explanation for some of its contents, there's nothing about the decision to go with XHTML Strict. The guidelines were drawn up with the RNIB as consultants so they do have some integrity though. All the best, -- Ian Fenn Chopstix Media http://www.chopstixmedia.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Andy Budd wrote: So what do they believe the accessibility advantages of XHTML Strict are? As far as I'm aware valid and semantically correct HTML is just as accessible as XHTML strict. And I'm guessing they probably aren't serving their pages up as XML so strictly speaking they are serving their pages up as HTML anyway. This kind of pettiness and misunderstanding of accessibility really gets my goat. It's a damn shame if you ask me ;-) Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.com/ There are a number of advantages to using HTML/XHTML Strict. Firstly, the term strict implies the strict separation between content and presentation. This is meant to have benefit for both user and developer (in an ideal world). It is meant to free up both the user and designer. Normally with think STRICT, those W3C Nazis (like I saw recently on another list:-), but the whole idea behind Strict is the strict separation of content and presentation, ultimately aiming for both users and designers worlds to be much more free and flexible. That's the point. Using strict frees the markup of attributes that are bound to the content layer. This ideally frees the web pages to accommodate more flexible designs. With strict you could develop alternate style sheets, one with absolute units (to satisfy client requirements), and one with relative units (to satisfy accessibility requirements), whatever you want. If you use transitional, that is exactly what you are doing, and you may need to do it, strict may not work for your design because of current lack of support and other things, but you are using a DTD that is transitional between the aim of separating content and presentation, and mixing them together. It's basically a compromise. From a developer's point of view, in large content systems, one of the major problems is separating content from presentation. It is very difficult to regenerate sites with fresh designs if this issue is not addressed at the foundation level. This also aids addressing accessibility issues. We just have to look at any of our own work, when better user agent support arrives in the future, and the customer requires a redesign, will we be able to leave the HTML/XHTML as is, and just modify the CSS, or will it require an overhaul of both? Regards Geoff Deering ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Geoff Deering wrote: There are a number of advantages to using HTML/XHTML Strict. [...] If you use transitional, that is exactly what you are doing, and you may need to do it, strict may not work for your design because of current lack of support and other things, but you are using a DTD that is transitional between the aim of separating content and presentation, and mixing them together. It's basically a compromise. I think what Andy meant (as I've got a feeling he's well in the know when it comes to css and separation of content and presentation) is what the advantages are if you can effectively write strict code while still declaring a transitional doctype. Yes, transitional doesn't make certain elements illegal, but that doesn't mean that developers can't do nicely separated content/HTML and presentation/CSS which happen to have a transitional doctype. There are *no* inherent benefits to tableless, css driven layouts in XHTML strict versus tableless, css driven HTML (strict or transitional) or even XHTML transitional. In particular, when served as text/html rather than application/xhtml+xml, and when not mixing in additional X technologies, for all intents and purposes XHTML is simply HTML with a slightly funkier syntax (self-closing elements for instance) which older browsers treat like broken HTML. There is no added benefit to the user. All the things you mention (switching stylesheets for different layouts, etc) can be done fine in transitional. XHTML (and strict in particular) being more accessible than HTML (and particularly transitional) is a myth. Conscientious coders can use exactly the same approach (tableless etc) in both. Sorry, ended up being a cyclic argument, but you see what I mean...and *that's* what Andy meant (if I may be so bold as to make an educated guess) -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Can I just offer an opinion here. When thinking of semantics it sometimes helps to go back 20 years and use pen and paper. If you were writing a big list (numbering each item) in a small notepad you would, on successive pages, keep the numbering going. So on the second page, the first item may be number 11. Putting that into a search result context, the 500 results from a search are one list. If you are kind enough to break that into pages, the list is still the same one so starting the list on the second page from record 11 and numbering it that way is, in my view, correct. Now, depending on how you do it you can only make that page only available to someone that already saw the first page (using form method post) however most of us have search results that can be linked to (using method get in a form or dynamically writing a link with a query string). E.g. http://www.seaslugforum.net/list.cfm?startrow=31 You'll note the text Messages 31 to 60 of 8740 to put the list in context. I see no problem with this. In fact if the list on the second page started at 1 I think it would be more confusing. P ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Patrick H. Lauke wrote: I think what Andy meant (as I've got a feeling he's well in the know when it comes to css and separation of content and presentation) is what the advantages are if you can effectively write strict code while still declaring a transitional doctype. Yes, transitional doesn't make certain elements illegal, but that doesn't mean that developers can't do nicely separated content/HTML and presentation/CSS which happen to have a transitional doctype. There are *no* inherent benefits to tableless, css driven layouts in XHTML strict versus tableless, css driven HTML (strict or transitional) or even XHTML transitional. That is a misconception. There are differences to the way a rendering parsing engine will work with the different doctypes. Just as a C programmer thinks what will the compiler do with this code, there needs to be some understanding of what is happening at the parser level. That's also why this list exists, because, from what I can see is that most of us need a list like this so that we can deal with the bugs that are in the parsers and rendering engines. But I'm also talking about working with bug free parsers, even if that is in the future. In that case there is quite a bit of difference with the way a parser will work with the same design in Strict as it will in Transitional. If we fail to understand that we are failing to understand what is happening with DOCTYPE parsing and rendering. I can understand why you'd use Transitional, where you could use Strict, ie where there may be a lack of browser support for a particular design implemented in Strict, but not supported properly, so you'd use Transitional. But it makes no sense to use Transitional where Strict does exactly the same job. In particular, when served as text/html rather than application/xhtml+xml, and when not mixing in additional X technologies, for all intents and purposes XHTML is simply HTML with a slightly funkier syntax (self-closing elements for instance) which older browsers treat like broken HTML. There is no added benefit to the user. All the things you mention (switching stylesheets for different layouts, etc) can be done fine in transitional. You are missing my point completely. Try maintaining or redesigning large content sites that need to meet web and accessibility standards that are caught in this dilemma. I'm surprised both of you, who have more knowledge than I do in the design area, have not come across this very problem. I really see it as something basic that web developers who take accessibility and web standards as their core approach would understand that to redesign sites that meet valid strict (either HTML or XHTML), are much easier to rework than Transitional. And it has very little to do with the deprecated elements. The real lose is the attributes for elements found in both DTDs, which are not part of Strict, because they are presentational by nature. XHTML (and strict in particular) being more accessible than HTML (and particularly transitional) is a myth. Conscientious coders can use exactly the same approach (tableless etc) in both. Please explain why you would use a transitional DTD where a Strict one is valid and works just as well? Regards, Geoff Deering ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Hey, I'm new here :-) In response to Geoff's email, XHTML is the web standard of the future. If we implement it now, we are just helping move it along faster. A friend of mine recently created a php script that makes your XHTML into HTML for browsers that cannot support it. You can check it out at http://blog.geoffers.uni.cc/archives/2005/01/07/xhtml-html . It sends application/xhtml+xml to browsers who can take it..and text/html to browsers that cannot. On transitional DTDs, they are meant to transitional, eh? So that you can blend your old methods into brand new ones without using invalid code. If you're going to use new methods only, there's no point of using a transitional DTD. XHTML was first introduced in 2000, and we're still transitioning. Ugg.. Regards, Andrew Sutherland ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:49:55 +1100, Geoff Deering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please explain why you would use a transitional DTD where a Strict one is valid and works just as well? Depends on the client and how they'll be maintaining their site; I've handed sites over to clients before who were going to use something like Frontpage or Composer to write bits of content which they would then drop into their page template, and going Transitional can keep them valid where Strict wouldn't. Then there are clients who I'm setting up with a CMS that I can set up to generate content which is always valid in Strict, so I'll use Strict. In other words, there is no hard and fast always use foo rule for DOCTYPEs. -- May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. -- George Carlin ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Geoff Deering wrote: That is a misconception. There are differences to the way a rendering parsing engine will work with the different doctypes. Ok, let's narrow down the field to the core issue: what are the rendering differences between XHTML1.0 Transitional and XTHML1.0 Strict? Ok, now the clincher: provided that these differences are not show stoppers (i.e. all of a sudden a browser trying to render XHTML1.0 Transitional makes everything disappear, overlap, scale down to infinitesimal size, etc), how are they having a majorly detrimental effect on accessibility? I can understand why you'd use Transitional, where you could use Strict, ie where there may be a lack of browser support for a particular design Not talking design (as in visual design), but features relating to the markup/content itself (i.e. the start attribute on OL). But it makes no sense to use Transitional where Strict does exactly the same job. In certain edge cases (like this one we're discussing) I think it does indeed make sense. By dropping start you are losing semantic information. You are missing my point completely. Try maintaining or redesigning large content sites that need to meet web and accessibility standards that are caught in this dilemma. I do. Did a redesign on a fairly large University site and rolled out the first phase as XHTML1.0 Transitional, and only later moved to Strict once the legacy systems were changed to spit out clean markup. Most of the web authors across the University are still using my Transitional template (for various reasons - mainly them having their own legacy systems to contend with). No problems in maintenance (over 1 1/2 years now) and no reports of accessibility problems on the grounds of my DOCTYPE choice. I'm surprised both of you, who have more knowledge than I do in the design area, have not come across this very problem. I really see it as something basic that web developers who take accessibility and web standards as their core approach would understand that to redesign sites that meet valid strict (either HTML or XHTML), are much easier to rework than Transitional. If we're talking purely from a visual layout point of view, of course settling for Strict is the only way to fly. However, this discussion revolves around the accessibility. I still haven't seen any evidence that Transitional (which, granted, can have subtle differences in its *visual* rendering) is less accessible than Strict (all other things being equal, i.e. tableless layout, no use of deprecated or presentational elements, etc). There's no killer feature in Strict which instantly makes it more accessible. Nada. And it has very little to do with the deprecated elements. The real lose is the attributes for elements found in both DTDs, which are not part of Strict, because they are presentational by nature. Again, just because the attributes are in the DTD, doesn't mean that I have to use them. I can write Transitional avoiding all the presentational attributes, and it's still Transitional if I so declare it. The main point is that there are a few things (like the start attribute) which have been thrown out of the window in Strict which are *not* presentational. Yes, in the utopian world of W3C standards, CSS will take care of things like numbering. However, for accessibility reasons, the page still needs to make sense without stylesheets...so, in actual fact (and bringing it down to the concrete example again) using ol without start and relying on CSS in Strict is *less* accessible than using ol start=... in Transitional. Please explain why you would use a transitional DTD where a Strict one is valid and works just as well? That's the point: in this instance, it does NOT work just as well. -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
On 9 Feb 2005, at 00:49, Geoff Deering wrote: Patrick H. Lauke wrote: There are *no* inherent benefits to tableless, css driven layouts in XHTML strict versus tableless, css driven HTML (strict or transitional) or even XHTML transitional. That is a misconception. Provided the XHTML document has been extended and that the correct content-type header has been sent for the document (application/x) there are *no* benefits. Pages don't load faster because no current browser will incrementally load the page. Mozilla themselves even recommend that you do *not* send it as application/xhtml+xml because of the slower rendering. With a HTML document (strict or otherwise) the rendering occurs incrementally There are differences to the way a rendering parsing engine will work with the different doctypes. No. There are differences in the way things such as box models are handled and the like. This is to do with Quirks mode and not to do with benefits of XHTML strict over HTML strict. That's also why this list exists, because, from what I can see is that most of us need a list like this so that we can deal with the bugs that are in the parsers and rendering engines. If you think that this list will deal with parsing and rendering bugs you are probably mistaken. You could probably discuss them and talk by all means but the real work gets done when you submit bug reports to bugzilla and the like. But I'm also talking about working with bug free parsers, even if that is in the future.In that case there is quite a bit of difference with the way a parser will work with the same design in Strict as it will in Transitional. Considering that Internet Explorer are reported to have said that they didn't want to change the IE engine because it would 'break the WWW' and also considering that Mozilla even chose to *have* a quirks mode I think that you will see the existence of quirks mode for a long time to come. But it makes no sense to use Transitional where Strict does exactly the same job. Reverse this statement and realise that it means nothing. In particular, when served as text/html rather than application/xhtml+xml, and when not mixing in additional X technologies, for all intents and purposes XHTML is simply HTML with a slightly funkier syntax (self-closing elements for instance) which older browsers treat like broken HTML. There is no added benefit to the user. All the things you mention (switching stylesheets for different layouts, etc) can be done fine in transitional. You are missing my point completely. Try maintaining or redesigning large content sites that need to meet web and accessibility standards that are caught in this dilemma. I have seen some real messes in my short time and I know that HTML transitional can be just as accessible as XHTML strict. All the elements available to XHTML strict are available in HTML transitional. A perfectly validating XHTML strict document has just as much chance to be inaccessible as a HTML transitional. Try creating an XHTML Strict document which validates and then convert it to a HTML document (by removing the forward slashes from self-closing elements) and then change the DTD to HTML transitional. Open both in a text only browser and compare them. If you see any differences then let me know. I really see it as something basic that web developers who take accessibility and web standards as their core approach would understand that to redesign sites that meet valid strict (either HTML or XHTML), are much easier to rework than Transitional. Once again you are saying that a HTML transitional document can't contain all the same elements as an XHTML strict document. Please explain why you would use a transitional DTD where a Strict one is valid and works just as well? As before, reverse the two subjects and see that the statement is still true: Please explain why you would use a Strict DTD where a transitional one is valid and works just as well? -- Paul Connolley AccessPlanIT LWDP Data Manager Phone 01524 389541, Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Geoff Deering wrote: That is my point, not all these other arguments about where to or where not to use transitional or strict. However, that *was* the point of the original question. To recap: something can't be done in strict which is not presentational, but nevertheless has been dropped from the DTD. It can be done in transitional, but some shortsighted policy maker in the company decided that their guidelines should absolutely require strict. Which then prompted the (admittedly more general) question of whether or not strict has any accessibility advantages over transitional so as to warrant it being made mandatory in an accessibility policy. I still stand by the idea that there is nothing intrinsically more accessible to strict over transitional - and in very rare cases such as this one, transitional *is* more accessible than strict. -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:50:56 +1100, Geoff Deering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you have a document that validates as doctype Strict, then why declare it as transitional? For what reason are such decisions made? That is my point, not all these other arguments about where to or where not to use transitional or strict. I don't want to re-open the can of worms that is the XHTML MIME-type, but I lean toward using Transitional on any XHTML that gets sent as 'text/html'. -- May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. -- George Carlin ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Ian, Why not switch to XHTML Transitional for the page that you want to use the start= attribute on? I outline this technique on my website. You don't have to be using PHP to do this, you can simply cut and paste the correct DTD. http://loadaveragezero.com/vnav/labs/PHP/DOCTYPE.php Doug ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Douglas wrote: Why not switch to XHTML Transitional for the page that you want to use the start= attribute on? Thanks for that, Douglas. Unfortunately my client has accessibility guidelines that insist the pages are built in XHTML Strict. All the best, -- Ian Fenn Chopstix Media http://www.chopstixmedia.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
