W3C process: was: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination

Yehuda,

I have raised the issue[1][2] you outline with Ian Jacobs, the W3C   
Process working group and others at W3C,

It's my particular concern and thesis that authors and end-users,  
including those requiring alternative affordance
are not well represented on W3C working groups.

Why is there no W3C UA Games technology or WG?

regards

Jonathan Chetwynd
Honte.eu



Jonathan Chetwynd

j.chetwynd@btinternet.com
http://www.openicon.org/

+44 (0) 20 7978 1764


[1] On 24 Sep 2009, at 20:00, Yehuda Katz wrote:

> I'll think about it. I was mostly hoping to start a discussion about  
> alternatives. I think the bottom line here is that while the spec is  
> well-optimized for implementors, it is not very well optimized for  
> consumers. I suppose it would be possible to say that this stuff is  
> *only* for implementors. I'd prefer if it were also readable for  
> those trying to use the specification.
>
> -- Yehuda
>

[2] There are for instance a very large number of published comments  
raising similar concerns, regarding the technical language of  WCAG2   
- WAI, W3C.