- From: Wayne Dick <wed@csulb.edu>
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:29:54 -0800
- To: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>,EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
WCAG 2.0 has a mismatch between the actual audience and the intended audience. The actual audience appears to be evaluation tool developers, but the real intended audience is broader. WCAG differs from other standards because it is not a technology specification, and it cannot be expressed using formal specification languages like BNF or DTD. The problem is that evaluation tool developers need a formal language specs to to code unambiguous software. WCAG 2.0 is written in a formal structure that supports this goal as much as possible. While the language in WCAG 2.0 is English, it is so rigidly structured that it reads link a formal language not natural language. The difference between WCAG 2.0 and the technology specifications is the technology specifications are aware that their formal languages are almost unreadable. So, they accompany formal grammatic specifications with natural language descriptions. These are just as accurate as the formal structures, but they are readable by experts. The problem is that WCAG mistakes its near formal language descriptions for natural English. What is needed is a true natural language description like the ones given for HTML or CSS objects along with their formal descriptors.
Received on Saturday, 17 February 2007 06:30:03 UTC