- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 09:41:42 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14107
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com
--- Comment #9 from Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> 2011-12-11 09:41:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> > I think it's particularly unreasonable to read checkpoint 11.1 to mean that all
> of WCAG 1 restricts all future specs without reading it to mean that you should
> stop using WCAG 1 and use WCAG 2 instead.
>
> Unreasonable or not, some people have no choice.
Can you point to an example of legislation that forces this interpretation of
WCAG1's own requirements? I'm not sure how W3C can guard itself against such
secondary interpretations.
> Even so, the W3C
> authored and recommended it, and has not retired it. It's a current
> recommendation, even if there is also a more up-to-date recommendation.
I'm not sure what you mean. In addition to WCAG's own text on the matter, WCAG2
states:
"WCAG 2.0 succeeds Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10], which was
published as a W3C Recommendation May 1999. Although it is possible to conform
either to WCAG 1.0 or to WCAG 2.0 (or both), the W3C recommends that new and
updated content use WCAG 2.0. The W3C also recommends that Web accessibility
policies reference WCAG 2.0."
Can you explain what "retiring" WCAG1 would mean in terms of the W3C process?
Are there any W3C specifications that are "retired"? Or, failing that, can you
point to any examples from other specification-recommending organisations?
i.e. What can W3C do to retire WCAG 1?
--
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 11 December 2011 09:41:44 UTC