- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 23:09:36 +0000
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14107
--- Comment #11 from Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> 2012-01-28 23:09:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> In late 2010, the Australian Human Rights Commission did actually
> endorse WCAG 2.0. However, it has not yet been implemented in policy:
> implementation has just been delayed again, until the end of 2013, and
> unofficially at this stage, it will soon be delayed yet again until
> the end of 2014 as a minimum.
Do you have a citation for this?
The Victorian and Austrialian Governments both appear to require WCAG2
compliance by 31 December 2012:
http://www.egov.vic.gov.au/victorian-government-resources/standards-victoria/accessibility-standard.html?sid=964059446
http://webguide.gov.au/accessibility-usability/accessibility/
(That's not to say they will achieve it, of course!)
In general, the mismatch between providing best practice guidance to developers
on rapidly changing technologies and encoding implementation specifics, rather
than end-user requirements, in law is a problem that goes way beyond the
@summary attribute. Witness the recent thread on public-webapps about adding
obsolescence notices to legacy DOM specifications:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JanMar/0245.html
The debate about even adding a pointer to more relevant documents is suggestive
of why the W3C has never used its own procedure for formally rescinding a
Recommendation:
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr#rec-rescind
--
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 28 January 2012 23:09:41 UTC