Re: agenda+ Diacritics in WCAG

It would be useful to know what they are actually trying to achieve. 
Sometimes "removing diacritics" is a naive thing that (for example) 
English speakers try to do (because, generally speaking, they are 
affectations in English).

The meaning of "diacritic" itself is complex. Some diacritics alter or 
hint the pronunciation of the base letter. Other diacritics are used to 
form an entirely different letter. Diacritics are not just used with the 
Latin script. There is also the tendency to confuse "combining mark" 
with "diacritic". Without knowing what or why, it's difficult to make 
progress--and there might be better approaches than removing information 
from the text.

Look forward to the conversation.

Addison

On 4/6/2026 5:39 AM, Fuqiao Xue wrote:
> The WCAG 3 Text & Wording subgroup is defining use of diacritics for 
> languages "where they are optional". Here's their current 
> draft/working document for that provision:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z_Xuava_GS-Fwfk4Hg8KYDr1WcjgcuswKmTELukzvwo/edit?usp=sharing 
>
>
> They are asking us to help them on principles or practices that may 
> guide this work.
>
> Some of the specific concerns are around:
>
> 1. Identifying the applicable languages. Is there a list, or 
> especially some programmatic standard to identify those?
> 2. How assistive technology actually handles (or should handle!) cases 
> like this. Is requiring the full-diacritic version the right answer?
> 3. Expectations around burden/effort. It was brought up that having 
> both versions in a datastore, and a user-visible toggle, is a big change.
>
> They are happy to answer questions, or have a joint call to talk about 
> this.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
-- 
Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

Received on Monday, 6 April 2026 17:56:01 UTC