E-mail List Archives

Re: Block Links & Other Validation Issues in XHTML 1.0 Transitional

for

From: Alastair Campbell
Date: Feb 25, 2016 5:11AM


Wow, it's been a while since I thought about XHTML!

WCAG 2 (4.1.1) doesn't require validation, but does say that "elements are
nested according to their specifications", so unless you switch doctype I
think it would be a technical fail.

In this case (and anyone please jump in to correct me), I don't think
browsers will actually interpret it any differently from HTML5.

From what I remember, HTML4.1, XHTML trans and HTML5 will all use the same
rendering modes. If you use XHTML strict and worry about IE previous to 8,
there can be some oddities in different modes, but you would probably have
spotted those already.

Have you tested just changing the doctype? Going XHTML to HTML5 is pretty
painless compared to the other way around.

My main accessibility concern would be the very verbose link-text that can
be created. We tend to use a small text link (e.g. the heading) and then a
little script to make the whole block click-able.

Cheers,

-Alastair



On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Dennis Deacon < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
wrote:

> We use block links throughout our website for advertisements, offers, etc.
> I've recently learned that block links are officially only supported
> starting with HTML5. So while the web browser handles them fine
> (seemingly), and only irritate screen reader users (unfortunately), this
> technically fails validation. How does this relate to the "R" in WCAG's
> POUR principles (Robust)?
>
> I see mention that under parsing, web pages should validate, with the HTML
> conforming to specifications. Block links under a XHTML doctype would fail
> this. Does this mean these pages fail compliance (especially if mandated)?
> Additionally, if a page has validation errors, would this be an
> accessibility compliance concern?
>
>