[WSG] UK Government Web standards - IE and serving issues...
Following some of the very interesting UK .gov mails of late, I've been involved in a fierce debate about serving XHTML 1.0 STRICT either as application/xhtml+xml or text/html, content negotiation and the like - whether, in fact, the world is ready for XHTML etc Gurus argue for and against - at best. Jeez - clarity is a pain in the ass. I'm wondering what some of you guys think in this regard - especially if you had the opportunity for a brand new site launch etc I'm ambivalent as it stands... Thanks. C. ** 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] UK Government Web standards - IE and serving issues...
Cameron Edwards wrote: Following some of the very interesting UK .gov mails of late, I've been involved in a fierce debate about serving XHTML 1.0 STRICT either as application/xhtml+xml or text/html, content negotiation and the like - whether, in fact, the world is ready for XHTML etc While I do strongly believe the future of the web lies with XHTML [1], the world is not ready for it yet, which is why I currently advocate that beginners learn HTML. Before XHTML can be used seriously on the web, here a few milestones we need to reach first: * Majority of UAs support XHTML (including Google, IE, lynx, handheld devices, etc.) * Support for incremental rendering. Gecko currently cannot incrementally render XHTML. * CMSs need to properly support XHTML, using XML tools that guarentee well-formedness and validity. * CMSs need to handle character encodings correctly (there are currently significant problems with blogs handling trackbacks from sites in a different character encoding) * CMSs need to be able to serve XHTML as XML to users that support it and transform to HTML for those that don't. (not just content-negotiation, I mean actual XSLT transformation (or equivalent) from XHTML to HTML) Plus, the following extras would be nice, but not essential: * ECMAScript for XML (E4X) widely supported * MathML, SVG, XForms, etc. widely supported (natively in implementations, not just plugins) Until such a time, there is little point using XHTML for any major corporate or government site, especially if you don't need to use any XML only features, like mixed namespaces, etc. By the way, for anyone interested, the next versions of XHTML, including XHTML 2.0 and the WHATWG's XML serialisation of HTML 5 (XHTML 5), are being defined so that they *must not* be served as text/html. [1] http://lachy.id.au/log/2005/04/xhtml-future -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ ** 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] UK Government Web standards - IE and serving issues...
Cameron Edwards Following some of the very interesting UK .gov mails of late, I've been involved in a fierce debate about serving XHTML 1.0 STRICT either as application/xhtml+xml or text/html, content negotiation and the like - whether, in fact, the world is ready for XHTML etc Hmm...that old chestnut...right, my current view: A large part of the world is ready for XHTML served as application/xhtml+xml, but IE isn't (and won't, even in version 7), and neither are older browsers which may still be in use (particularly in Govt and Education). So, by just using application/xhtml+xml you are excluding any user agents that don't know what to do with it right from the start (imagine your grandmother with her IE6 going to her local council website - after you finally got her to use the interweb - to find information on some opening times or whatever, only to be presented with a Open / Save as... dialog). Add to that the draconian error handling of application/xhtml+xml aware user agents...one unescaped character or br instead of br/ and the entire house of cards fall apart. Yes, you should have systems etc in place to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen (e.g. if you have content authors, give them an XHTML compliant editing environment, and run any external source such as integrated news feeds through a validator and fix them on the fly), but stuff can slip through in the most unusual of places. Although heavily frowned upon, you can use text/html (it's a SHOULD NOT rather than a MUST NOT) http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/ The use of 'text/html' for XHTML SHOULD be limited for the purpose of rendering on existing HTML user agents, and SHOULD be limited to [XHTML1] documents which follow the HTML Compatibility Guidelines. Content negotiation, if done properly, works as an acceptable fallback mechanism to deliver XHTML 1.0 to HTML user agents. Of course, for the last two points, there is a fundamental philosophical issue that HTML user agents will see your XHTML as broken HTML...but off hand I can't remember if this causes any *actual* issues or if it's just a but in theory we're doing a bad thing kind of deal. With all of the above points many will ask: *why* do you need to actually use XHTML? There is no practical gain from the user perspective in using HTML compatible XHTML, not mixed with any other X languages, over simply going for HTML 4.01 Strict (and avoiding the use of attributes/elements that have been deprecated in XHTML). One of the only situations I came across was when I recently needed to run an existing page through XSLT to turn it into something else ... I couldn't have run an HTML 4 page through the transform (as noted on another recent thread here, I believe). The counter argument here would obviously be that the XHTML document should not be the final repository of information, that there should be a generic XML file which is then transformed to HTML 4.01 and any other required format. Ho hum... Sorry...hope my slightly twisty arguments and stream of consciousness type ramblings made some kind of sense... Patrick Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ** 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] UK Government Web standards - IE and serving issues...
Patrick Lauke wrote: (imagine your grandmother with her IE6 going to her local council website - after you finally got her to use the interweb - to find information on some opening times or whatever, only to be presented with a Open / Save as... dialog). Patrick, I'm a grandmother -- albeit a stunningly youthful one ;-) -- and I'm following this thread avidly as I try and decide whether to serve up html or xhtml as I accessify a delightful but flawed WP theme. On this interweb so many of you dashing young things are talking about. Could we drop the sexist (it's never a grandfather!), ageist digs at people who simply had the misfortune to be born 10, 20, 50 years too early? I hate to pick on you (of all people, who do so much for accessibility) but the aunt mabel type tag (it's nearly always an older, female relative) comes up too frequently and whilst I'm no bra burning feminist, even I get hacked off at throwaway remarks such as this. Now where did I put my dentures and zimmer frame last night... ;-) Daisy --- http://chasingdaisy.com -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/190 - Release Date: 01/12/2005 ** 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] UK Government Web standards - IE and serving issues...
Daisy Could we drop the sexist (it's never a grandfather!), ageist digs at people who simply had the misfortune to be born 10, 20, 50 years too early? Fair enough, my sincere apologies. In my defence, the example was actually based on a real life example from a colleague of mine. Replace my previous statement with something non-gender/non-age specific phrase to signify users who may have a average computer skills and are not tech savvy. Patrick Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ** 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] UK Government Web standards - IE and serving issues...
Patrick/Lachlan - many, many thanks for your input... ...clashing as it is in some regard. :o) I'd still prefer to deliver my site as XHTML 1.0 STRICT - if I serve it merely as text//html then I'm still covering the bases somewhat while elements of the world at large play catch-up. My mark-up will be perfectly structural - I'll make sure my publishing system doesn't allow users to bruise either markup or accessibility etc... ...but, in terms of enabling the site to upgrade at a future date with minimal hassle I wouldn't personally user HTML 4.01 - even if it was served in a really clean manner. Currently, I also plan on enabling XML apps like SVG etc also. Sig - choices are tough. Pretty sure I know what I'm picking though. Further input will be warmly received... C. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/02/05 11:05 am Cameron Edwards Following some of the very interesting UK .gov mails of late, I've been involved in a fierce debate about serving XHTML 1.0 STRICT either as application/xhtml+xml or text/html, content negotiation and the like - whether, in fact, the world is ready for XHTML etc Hmm...that old chestnut...right, my current view: A large part of the world is ready for XHTML served as application/xhtml+xml, but IE isn't (and won't, even in version 7), and neither are older browsers which may still be in use (particularly in Govt and Education). So, by just using application/xhtml+xml you are excluding any user agents that don't know what to do with it right from the start (imagine your grandmother with her IE6 going to her local council website - after you finally got her to use the interweb - to find information on some opening times or whatever, only to be presented with a Open / Save as... dialog). Add to that the draconian error handling of application/xhtml+xml aware user agents...one unescaped character or br instead of br/ and the entire house of cards fall apart. Yes, you should have systems etc in place to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen (e.g. if you have content authors, give them an XHTML compliant editing environment, and run any external source such as integrated news feeds through a validator and fix them on the fly), but stuff can slip through in the most unusual of places. Although heavily frowned upon, you can use text/html (it's a SHOULD NOT rather than a MUST NOT) http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/ The use of 'text/html' for XHTML SHOULD be limited for the purpose of rendering on existing HTML user agents, and SHOULD be limited to [XHTML1] documents which follow the HTML Compatibility Guidelines. Content negotiation, if done properly, works as an acceptable fallback mechanism to deliver XHTML 1.0 to HTML user agents. Of course, for the last two points, there is a fundamental philosophical issue that HTML user agents will see your XHTML as broken HTML...but off hand I can't remember if this causes any *actual* issues or if it's just a but in theory we're doing a bad thing kind of deal. With all of the above points many will ask: *why* do you need to actually use XHTML? There is no practical gain from the user perspective in using HTML compatible XHTML, not mixed with any other X languages, over simply going for HTML 4.01 Strict (and avoiding the use of attributes/elements that have been deprecated in XHTML). One of the only situations I came across was when I recently needed to run an existing page through XSLT to turn it into something else ... I couldn't have run an HTML 4 page through the transform (as noted on another recent thread here, I believe). The counter argument here would obviously be that the XHTML document should not be the final repository of information, that there should be a generic XML file which is then transformed to HTML 4.01 and any other required format. Ho hum... Sorry...hope my slightly twisty arguments and stream of consciousness type ramblings made some kind of sense... Patrick Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] UK Government Web standards - IE and serving issues...
Patrick Lauke wrote: Daisy Could we drop the sexist (it's never a grandfather!), ageist digs at people who simply had the misfortune to be born 10, 20, 50 years too early? Replace my previous statement with something non-gender/non-age specific phrase to signify users who may have a average computer skills and are not tech savvy. I'll be sure to make sure all my future examples use non-technologically inclined, gender indeterminent homo sapien instead. Sure it's a mouthful, but we mustn't be sexist. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
political correctness (was RE: [WSG] UK Government Web standards - IE and serving issues...)
Lachlan Hunt I'll be sure to make sure all my future examples use non-technologically inclined, gender indeterminent homo sapien instead. Sure it's a mouthful, but we mustn't be sexist. You can go overboard on political correctness, certainly...but Daisy's comment is very valid in my opinion. And yes, my original reply was (uncharacteristically for me) devoid of sarcasm. P Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ N���.�Ȩ�X���+��i�� n�Z�֫v�+��h��y�m�쵩�j�l��.f���.�ץ�w�q(��b��(��,�)උazX����)��
