W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

W3C process: was: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination

From: ~:'' ありがとうございました <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:09:14 +0100
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, process-issues@w3.org, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Message-Id: <931BDF46-4FBB-418D-B7A3-FFF6A109E957@btinternet.com>
To: Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Yehuda,

I have raised the issue[1][2] you outline with Ian Jacobs, the W3C   
Process working group and others at W3C,

It's my particular concern and thesis that authors and end-users,  
including those requiring alternative affordance
are not well represented on W3C working groups.

Why is there no W3C UA Games technology or WG?

regards

Jonathan Chetwynd
Honte.eu



Jonathan Chetwynd

j.chetwynd@btinternet.com
http://www.openicon.org/

+44 (0) 20 7978 1764



[1] On 24 Sep 2009, at 20:00, Yehuda Katz wrote:

> I'll think about it. I was mostly hoping to start a discussion about  
> alternatives. I think the bottom line here is that while the spec is  
> well-optimized for implementors, it is not very well optimized for  
> consumers. I suppose it would be possible to say that this stuff is  
> *only* for implementors. I'd prefer if it were also readable for  
> those trying to use the specification.
>
> -- Yehuda
>

[2] There are for instance a very large number of published comments  
raising similar concerns, regarding the technical language of  WCAG2   
- WAI, W3C.
Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 09:09:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:33 GMT