[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Some thoughts regarding DW

Hash: SHA1

Am 16.08.2005 um 01:49 schrieb Steve Langasek:

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. As it was explained to you at the
time, the issues you were experiencing were *not* caused by a lack of
standards-compliance of the web pages in question, they were caused by a

It was caused. XHTML has to be delivered by the server as application/ xml+xhtml and _not_ text/html for which every brower is allowed to interpret as: here comes HTML. That means: The xhtml page must be compatible with HTML if delivered as text/html. But the homepage of d- w is not compatible, with html, so compatibility mode _cannot_ be used. If tzhe page is not compatible, anything may happen.

You may believe it or not: If keeping standards it is not that difficult to create modern pages which read fine with lynx or older browsers. Only for some really crappy software you need some hacks.

Read Anne van kesteren's blog about that, if you do not understand. He can explain that much better than I. The definition on w3.org might be confusing becaus ist mixes everything in a few sentences. And one easiliy can miss the word compatibility and its sense when readying "may be deliverd as text/html".

In addition there was a notice in the mozilla pages, why mozilla will not support wrong delivery of XHTML pages. It goes into quirks mode then.

The problem is, if it needs hours of discussion, just to change the page and make it accessible again, that really sucks, Everyone can see: Oh, lynx does not work, we have a problem - if one accepts that being a problem. Either we want accesibilty, and then we do not discuss about nothing going wrong or we do not and just take lynx in concern. There are several reasons, why some people have to use lynx.

If you cannot see, why the need of a very long discussion about that might hurt people extremly, I cannot do anything by that.


- -- http://www.witch.westfalen.de

Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)


Reply to: