WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: W3C HTML/XHTML References

for

From: James Pickering
Date: Jun 30, 2005 12:57PM

Thomas, you wrote

.......... What I now have understood, is that XHTML docs can be properly
served as a text/html MIME-typ, if the XML declaration is omitted ..........

Well, they will be served as HTML documents. The bottom line on all this is
how your Web Host/Service Provider has their software configured to process
and serve the MIME-types you use in the documents that you load onto their
server. You need to check how your Web pages are actually being served by
using a resource such as http://www.web-caching.com/showheaders.html If
you find that your documents are not being served as you prescribe by your
Markup -- for instance as text/html when you specified
application/xhtml+xml - - contact your Web Host/Service Provider to see if
they can accomodate and process those MIME-types (I think that most do have
their software configured to handle those MIME-types these days). They will
usually be able to easily (and willingly) modify their software to effect
this -- if there is a problem for them in doing that, they will provide you
with the necessary information for you to edit your document HTTP header
information on their server.

.......... Does it really matter if I stick to the W3C de facto standards,
or ISO standard, when it seems to be working (for the end users) any way?
.......... Nonetheless, using whatever standards, it helps spread awareness
of good Web page code, which the future will benefit, I suppose.

Yes, it does -- and yes it will -- Thomas. Good Markup coding practices --
the production of valid Markup -- are essential to the production of
interoperable Web pages.

James Pickering
Pickering Pages: http://www.jp29.org/


----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Jedenfelt" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] W3C HTML/XHTML References


Hello James,

Thanks for the input.

A couple of years ago I, too, switched from XHTM 1.0 to HTML 4.01, after
having read the discussion on how to serve XHTM docs, and Ian Hickson's
article.

(Mark 'dive-into-mark' Pilgrim did too make the switch.)

1)
What I now have understood, is that XHTML docs can be properly served as a
text/html MIME-typ, if the XML declaration is omitted.

2)
Also, what I deduce form Terence's reply [1], is that XHTML is the preferred
doctype for cell phones.

With these two arguments I am willing to switch back to XHTML docs (sigh).

I would like to know if there are other systems/user agents that I need to
take into account for my final decision on using XHTML.

As I am not technically educated, I myself really cannot make such a
decision. I have to read what other, technically skilled people says on the
subject.

My guideline on this decision is to give higher priority to how the end
users are affected, rather than technical (de facto) standards and notes.
After all, standards are for the benefit of humans, not the other way
around.

All the above does not really matter (for me), as I create Web pages for my
personal use that few people will ever read. Still, since I begun reading
the W3C docs in 1999, I have had an urge to do it the right way.

Which is very frustrating: Does it really matter if I stick to the W3C de
facto standards, or ISO standard, when it seems to be working (for the end
users) any way?

Nonetheless, using whatever standards, it helps spread awareness of good Web
page code, which the future will benefit, I suppose.

Regards,
Thomas Jedenfelt
(non-professional Web developer since 1997)

[1]
Subject: ISO-HTML
http://www.webaim.org/discussion/mail_thread.php?thread=2368&;id=6893#post15


----- Original Message -----
From: "James Pickering"
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:07:28 -0700
>
> Not off topic at all, Thomas -- serving Web pages correctly is an
> integral component of Accessibility. Ian Hickson's famous article
> that you provided a link too is the classic reference and to a
> large extent influenced me to initially eschew XHTML. Much water
> has flown over the dam since that article, but the premises are
> still valid. However, the W3C -- and the Web authoring community at
> large -- has not been idle on this point. I have found the
> following references particularly helpful:
>
> http://www.w3.org/International/articles/serving-xhtml/
> http://www.w3.org/2003/01/xhtml-mimetype/content-negotiation
> http://keystonewebsites.com/articles/mime_type.php
>
> With XHTML 2.0 "coming down the Pike", it is especially important
> to understand the principles of serving XHTML correctly.
>
> Pickering Pages: http://www.jp29.org/
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thomas Jedenfelt"
> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 3:31 AM
>
> Although it might be off topic on this forum, this article may be of
> interest:
>
> 'Sending XHTML as text/html Considered Harmful'
> http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1031465247&;count=1
> by Ian 'Hixie' Hickson - has been (is?) working with W3C.
>
> Regards,
> Thomas Jedenfelt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Pickering"
> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 02:23:49 -0700
>
> >
> > This reference has probably been posted here before, but IMO The
> > W3C HTML and XHTML Frequently Answered Questions Page
> > http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq offers especially good
> > information relating to the production (and importance) of valid
> > Markup, the functionality of older and newer user agents
> > (particularly graphical Browsers), backward compatability and the
> > principles of correctly serving XHTML (Media type designations).
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/xhtml/media-types/results
> > provides a very illuminating examination of XHTML processing by XML
> > compatible Browsers (just about all current graphical Browsers).
> >
> > James Pickering
> >
> > Pickering Pages: http://www.jp29.org/

--

Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 8 at http://www.opera.com