W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Discussion: Accessibility Issues Procedure

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 05:00:27 -0600
Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-id: <5D4585C0-EB15-4BE2-A11D-337EC074E919@apple.com>
To: William Loughborough <wloughborough@gmail.com>

On Jul 25, 2009, at 2:14 AM, William Loughborough wrote:

> With all due respect I would like to point out a fundamental reason  
> why your arguments do not apply to this situation without even  
> chiding you for inappropriate characterizations of "genuflecting",  
> "getting your way", etc. because on the surface that is what the  
> "demands" seem like.

That is what  the demands seem like be because that's what they are.

It may seem rude to put it that way, but honestly I found the proposal  
itself to be rude, and was amazed at the restraint that Sam and Ian  
showed in responding to it.

> The difference between this set of circumstances and the cited SVG/ 
> CSS and other similar "battles" is that just as the U.S. congress in  
> the preamble to the ADA and the UN's recent proclamation about  
> disability rights point out there has been a systematic/official  
> discrimination against people with disabilities, including really  
> severe stuff like incarceration/sterilization/euthanasia. Nobody  
> from CSS WG threatens to institutionalize members of SVG WG but  
> people with disabilities live with such realities all their lives.

No one from the HTML WG threatens to institutionalize, or for that  
matter incarcerate, sterilize, or euthanize either persons with  
disabilities or members of WAI. To imply otherwise is inflammatory and  

As far as I can tell, everyone in the HTML WG who has spoken up on the  
matter believes in web accessibility for the disabled. What we have  
disagreed on is the best technical means to achieve this goal. To say  
one technical position represents human rights and another represents  
discrimination is just a cheap way to wrap yourself in the flag. It  
adds nothing to our understanding of the issues, and should be outside  
the bounds of reasonable discussion.

Similarly, making elaborate proposals for process concessions is no  
substitute for making a case on the technical merits or for building  
consensus for your point of view.

Received on Saturday, 25 July 2009 11:01:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:48 UTC