W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: "Why standards..." change proposal (about:translations)

From: Alan Chuter <achuter@teleservicios.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:05:11 +0100
To: Roberto Castaldo <r.castaldo@iol.it>, w3c-wai-eo <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Message-ID: <opr4qrixykso27mf@localhost>

Including WCAG 2.0 gives the idea more weight, but if it doesn't happen, 
the effect could bethe opposite. Is the initiative only for WAI or is it 
for W3C in general? If it's only for WAI documents perhaps it won't be 
sufficient to satisfy legislators.

We could also say that translations are available and "managed" or 
"catalogued" by W3C and that there is nothing to stop governments approving 
these.

However, it is my understanding that here in Spain the law can not require 
organisations to comply with something that is not a normative standard. It 
isn't a language problem.

Alan Chuter
achuter@teleservicios.com



On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:24:10 +0100, Roberto Castaldo <r.castaldo@iol.it> 
wrote:

>
> Hi group,
>
> here's my change request about fragmentation factors in "Why Standards 
> Harmonization is Essential to Web Accessibility" document:
>
>
> Actual sentence:
> "the lack of an authorized translation of a guideline in a local language 
> -- yet for WCAG 2.0, W3C/WAI expects authorized translations to be 
> possible; "
>
> My proposal:
> "the lack of authorized translations of guidelines and raccomandations in 
> local languages -- W3C/WAI is actually working on a authorized 
> translations protocol to allow local W3C officies to start and 
> translating guidelines in local languages;"
>
>
>
> My best regards,
>
> Roberto Castaldo
> IWA/HWG Member
>
>



-- 
Alan Chuter
achuter@teleservicios.com
Received on Friday, 12 March 2004 04:06:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:35 UTC