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

Re: R: Congratulations !!

From: Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:44:50 +0100
Message-ID: <43874D92.4020309@usabile.it>
To: "Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
CC: gv@trace.wisc.edu, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) wrote:

>    >
>    >Roberto:
>    >No Me, but wai
>    >  
>    >
>    I don't know if this is true, but my points hold anyway, of course.
>    There's a strong difference between law and standard, for the reason I 
>    already pointed out.
>    With this are you saying that you personally don't want the wcag be a 
>    law? So I misunderstood you for all these years? ;-) Can you confirm? 
>    You don't want wcag be a law?... ;-) It would be a good new. :)
>Don't change my words. 

Well, you said "no me"... I thought I understand, but... :)

>If we make a clear wcag 2.0 that goes with EU request is possible that local countries endorse them. Otherwise wcag 2.0 will stay as reccomandation for people with good faith.

I think we're messing up a bit. The questions are:

1. First of all we should make a good raccomandation from a theoretical 
point of view, and applicable for authors. In that, we shouldn't care EU 
request. EU request would decide to adapt their resolution to our new 
standard, not the opposite! :)

2. Local countries should accomplish EU request, not WCAG request. So it 
depends on EU adopting our standards, first of all, not local countries. 
If we make a good standard, they should.

3. EU (and local goverments) law could adopt the part of wcag that are 
viable, paying attention to the cost/benefit ratio. We could make a good 
raccomandation that isn't applicable in its whole, because it depends on 
tools maker adopting it, among other things. Governments could try to 
make laws to force the tools maker to follows our guidelines, or tools 
makers could do it by themselves, but until they do that, some part of 
our standard could be not easily applicable. So this is a political 
problem, not a technical one. We can't think about that. We should make 
a good standard. Then the rest will follow, but it's not up to us.

4. It's not our work to make a standard that can become a law. The law 
translation of a standard can have problems depending on many factors. 
It's not our job, anyway. We're not making laws.

Received on Friday, 25 November 2005 17:34:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:57 UTC