W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2005

Re: Validity

From: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 06:34:53 +0000
Message-ID: <e2a28a920511052234w35673522t@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt May <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
Cc: Bruce Bailey <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

On 06/11/05, Matt May <mcmay@bestkungfu.com> wrote:
> Further, if anything, my position is counter to my own interests. It is in
> my best interest as a skilled author of HTML (and part-owner of a company
> which sells these services) for WCAG 2 to have a minimum requirement of
> validity, because I am one of very few developers who is capable of reliably
> achieving that standard. I maintain this position because of my awareness
> through the time I spent working on standards and interacting with various
> segments of my own field that a large majority of people wouldn't have the
> first clue how to create valid content.

With respect, Matt, I think you're overstating your skills. I have
nothing but the greatest admiration for your skills, and would be the
first to agree that you are by far outweighed by developers that
couldn't match your skills, but I don't think those that do equal your
talents could be described as "very few". This also relates to your
cargo cult argument, and your personal relationship with people that
were involved in writing W3C specifications; elitism shouldn't be a
consideration in these discussions, as all it does it shut out those
that may have opinions that are worth considering.

Best regards,

Gez


--
_____________________________
Supplement your vitamins
http://juicystudio.com
Received on Sunday, 6 November 2005 06:35:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:40 GMT