[Irl-dean] Opinions: HTML Transitional and WCAG Double-A

[Gez Lemon]

Happy new year, everyone.

On 09/01/07, Barry McMullin <mcmullin at eeng.dcu.ie> wrote:
> Hi Folks -
>
> And just to kick the new year off ... a quick "quiz" - just off
> the top of your heads: do you think it is ever reasonable to
> claim WCAG Double A conformance for a page that is presented in
> HTML Transitional? Assume that it *is* valid (whether HTML 4 or
> XHTML 1 etc.) - but that is not the point at issue.  Rather, I
> want to probe how people see/interpret the distinction between
> Transitional and Strict, and how that relates to WCAG
> conformance.


It depends whether or not the author is depending on something that is
available through the transitional DTD that isn't available in the
strict DTD. For example, if someone absolutely cannot use JavaScript,
but must have links that open in new windows (so that visitors can
keep their place on a form, for example), then a transitional doctype
is their only option. On the other hand, if the transitional doctype
is being used for the presentational elements and attributes, then I
don't think it's reasonable for someone to claim conformance to WCAG
1.0 AA. The note at the start of the HTML 4.01 transitional DTD [1]
states:

"This is the HTML 4.01 Transitional DTD, which includes
presentation attributes and elements that W3C expects to phase out
as support for style sheets matures. Authors should use the Strict
DTD when possible, but may use the Transitional DTD when support
for presentation attribute and elements is required."

This note is also applicable to the XHTML 1.0 transitional [2], as
that DTD states:

"This is the same as HTML 4 Transitional except for
changes due to the differences between XML and SGML."


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/sgml/loosedtd.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd

Best regards,

Gez

-- 
_____________________________
Supplement your vitamins
http://juicystudio.com