WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Thread: DOCTYPE revisited

for

Number of posts in this thread: 6 (In chronological order)

From: Glenda Watson Hyatt
Date: Wed, Jun 26 2002 3:21PM
Subject: DOCTYPE revisited
No previous message | Next message →

I have just been given this "reason" for not including a doctype:

"Doctype - The platform that we are using is a dynamic system that auto
generates the pages. Because of this it is not a standard HTML page."

How valid is this?

My personal opinion is: well, make it valid html!

Cheers,
Glenda
*********
Glenda Watson Hyatt
Soaring Eagle Communications
"Creating freedom and power through accessible communications"
E Mail: mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Website: http://www.eaglecom.bc.ca
Want to know how to make your website accessible to more people?
Subscribe to our FREE newsletter by emailing
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

*********




---
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/


From: Tom Gilder
Date: Wed, Jun 26 2002 3:43PM
Subject: Re: DOCTYPE revisited
← Previous message | Next message →

On Wednesday, June 26, 2002, 11:12:39 PM, you wrote:
> I have just been given this "reason" for not including a doctype:
> "Doctype - The platform that we are using is a dynamic system that auto
> generates the pages. Because of this it is not a standard HTML page."

Answer: get a better system.

--
Tom Gilder
http://tom.me.uk/


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/


From: Glenda Watson Hyatt
Date: Wed, Jun 26 2002 3:55PM
Subject: RE: DOCTYPE revisited
← Previous message | Next message →

Tom,

I wholeheartedly agree! Superpages.ca is using this system to create all
its clients' webpages, and I don't like it at all. A friend asked me to
oversee the development of his site. With this online editing system, I
can't get into handcode the html. Its driving me nuts. Can't even create
valid html -- forget accessible html.

Glenda

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Gilder [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 3:36 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: DOCTYPE revisited
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 26, 2002, 11:12:39 PM, you wrote:
> > I have just been given this "reason" for not including a doctype:
> > "Doctype - The platform that we are using is a dynamic system that auto
> > generates the pages. Because of this it is not a standard HTML page."
>
> Answer: get a better system.
>
> --
> Tom Gilder
> http://tom.me.uk/
>
>
> ----
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
> visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
>


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/


From: Holly Marie
Date: Wed, Jun 26 2002 4:00PM
Subject: Re: DOCTYPE revisited
← Previous message | Next message →


----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenda Watson Hyatt" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "WebAIM accessibility forum" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 5:12 PM
Subject: DOCTYPE revisited


| I have just been given this "reason" for not including a doctype:
|
| "Doctype - The platform that we are using is a dynamic system that
auto
| generates the pages. Because of this it is not a standard HTML page."
|
| How valid is this?
|
| My personal opinion is: well, make it valid html!

Sounds like uninformed personnel. [or could be I am unaware?]
I have worked with many server side dynamic projects that generate not
only pages, but generate parts of pages, and they are all delivered with
XHTML Transitional or Strict with CSS, and validate when I get done
working through the templates. It takes some work, and could be pure
laziness that offers up that reply to you. What type of dynamic
programming is it that says you cannot use any Doctype for a web page?

When using PHP, I ran into a situation where the top line XML UTF 8 tag
was a problem and the solution for that one was easy...

PHP Echo [generate] the leading tag...

I am not sure of any software where a doctype would be impossible to
generate or place into a page?
Then I have also not used all of the page generating software. But I am
very curious.

holly



----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/


From: Holly Marie
Date: Wed, Jun 26 2002 4:03PM
Subject: Re: DOCTYPE revisited
← Previous message | Next message →


----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenda Watson Hyatt"


| Tom,
|
| I wholeheartedly agree! Superpages.ca is using this system to create
all
| its clients' webpages, and I don't like it at all. A friend asked me
to
| oversee the development of his site. With this online editing system,
I
| can't get into handcode the html. Its driving me nuts. Can't even
create
| valid html -- forget accessible html.
|

Does he have admin access to the authoring environment... meaning is
this a content management set up where you type this that and the other
thing in and it gets updated, rebuilt, and delivers to the web site?

If so, there should be templates that are accessible, both for the page
mark up and the CSS, and those are the files you would need access to.
If it is not overly complicated or parts are being delivered from
several files, you can usually get into a modify templates page and take
a look at the code for these. Those can indeed be modified and the basic
shell or template can have a Doctype inserted. They have to have HTML
somehow and it comes from somewhere, so there is where you need to get.

holly



----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/


From: John Foliot - bytown internet
Date: Wed, Jun 26 2002 6:57PM
Subject: RE: DOCTYPE revisited
← Previous message | No next message

> I am not sure of any software where a doctype would be impossible to
> generate or place into a page?
> Then I have also not used all of the page generating software. But I am
> very curious.

IBM Domino v.5 / Lotus

I have run into a situation when consulting to an organization who are
legally bound to create valid, accessible pages. Their development team are
aware of the issue, but cannot modify the generated header info; the
template will not allow for the insertion of a DocType.

The hard truth is that without a doctype declaration at the top of an <?>ML
Document, it cannot be properly parsed and validated <.em>according to the
specifications</em>. The fact that current browsers will parse and render
the document "properly" (and we could argue that statement for a long
time...), is pure blind luck and at the expense of thousands of lines of
code within the user agent.

Any HTML document, whether created via hard coded, notepad style HTML, or
dynamically generated using any number of server-side technologies (ASP,
PHP, ColdFusion, to name but 3) is, by the time it reaches the user, an HTML
Document. For it to *properly* validate it must include a DocType
Declaration. This requirement of a DTD was part of HTML 3.2, which was a
published spec in "early 1996" (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32#html), so it
is not something "new" by any stretch of the imagination.

Quote: "Every conforming HTML 3.2 document must
start with the <!DOCTYPE> declaration that is
needed to distinguish HTML 3.2 documents from
other versions of HTML. The HTML specification
is not concerned with storage entities. As a
result, it is not required that the document
type declaration reside in the same storage
entity (i.e. file). A Web site may choose to
dynamically prepend HTML files with the document
type declaration if it is known that all such HTML
files conform to the HTML 3.2 specification."

(To put this in historical perspective for you young-uns, this was almost 2
years before Netscape began being Free software - in those days you were
supposed to purchase a license. Netscape 3.0Beta1 was released in April
1996; Netscape also held an approximate 80% market share!)

Any excuse as to why it doesn't include the DTD is a smokescreen, plain and
simple. In the case above, I suggested that they go back to the vendor and
demand an upgrade to a system which does what it should have done from the
beginning, output valid HTML.

As always, JMHO

JF




----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/