Re: WCAG1.0 in mobile document

> By this reasoning, shouldn't we also drop the MWBP-to-WCAG-1.0 page too?

Yeliz,

What do you think about this? (See below for background.)

[Shawn cringes at the thought of not using all that work...]

> In practice people are very much doing WCAG 1.0 at present and they won't stop any time soon. For example in Spain WCAG 1.0 is pretty much written into the law for public websites.

Right, but how many people are *already doing MWBP* and have not done WCAG 1.0, and will start doing WCAG 1.0 in the coming months?

~Shawn



Alan Chuter wrote:
> Sorry, I forgot the main thing I was going to say.
> 
>>> Are we going to have two together documents:
>>> 1. WCAG 2.0 and MWBP
>>> 2. WCAG 1.0 and MWBP
>>>
>>> or are we going to just have WCAG2.0 and MWBP together
>> document?
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that EOWG decided to do only WCAG 2.0
>> and MWBP together (not WCAG 1.0 and MWBP) because we
>> don't really want to encourage people to who have not
>> done either to do WCAG 1.0, we want to encourage them to do
>> WCAG 2.0. Also, we want to keep the scope down both to
>> simplify the document and to limit the amount of work
>> required. :)
>>
>> This decision should be documented in past minutes and we
>> can look it up if needed.
> 
> By this reasoning, shouldn't we also drop the MWBP-to-WCAG-1.0 page too? In practice people are very much doing WCAG 1.0 at present and they won't stop any time soon. For example in Spain WCAG 1.0 is pretty much written into the law for public websites.
> 
> A.
> 
> 
> 
>       __________________________________________________________
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
> A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
> 
> 

-- 
Shawn Lawton Henry, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
about: http://www.w3.org/People/Shawn/
phone: +1-617-395-7664
e-mail: shawn@w3.org

Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 12:26:55 UTC