to X or not to X

[Brian Kelly]

> Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 11:22:52 -0500
> From: Justin Rounds <jrounds at lib.uchicago.edu>
> To: web4lib at webjunction.org
> Subject: Re: to X or not to X
> Message-ID: <4135F75C.3030400 at lib.uchicago.edu>
> 
> Let me also point out that the very page that you are 
> referring to is in 
> fact valid XHTML -- and strict 1.0 no less!
> 
> Not to mention the prominent "CSS Sucks" graphic on a page that is in 
> fact judiciously using CSS.
> 
> IMHO "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", so if your site works fine as 
> HTML4.01 by all means leave it be -- but I would recommend 
> any new pages 
> be built using XHTML (if only to support the evolution of standards). 
> However, if you're determined to recode all your pages then 
> take a look 
> at HTML Tidy (http://tidy.sourceforge.net/) which supposedly 
> can convert 
> HTML to XHTML automatically.
> 
> I'm curious what the real benefits are from moving to Strict from 
> Transitional though -- any thoughts/experiences anyone?
> 
> BTW, CSS most certainly does not "suck". :)
 
Note that a strict interpretation of the WAI WCAG 1.0 guidelines would
indicate that you MUST use XHTML 1.0 if you intent to comply with WAI AA
guidelines. See

<http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/> 

 Checkpoints:

  11.1 Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a
task and use the latest versions when supported. [Priority 2] 

Note that I personally think it is unfortunate that the WAI WCAG guidelines
mandate this.

(I approeciate that the word 'appropriate' could be interpreted as a get-out
- but I would argue that XHTML is appropriate for the task of document
markup).

Brian

--------------------------------------
Brian Kelly
UKOLN
University of Bath
BATH
UK
BA2 7AY
Email: B.Kelly at ukoln.ac.uk