- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 06:34:49 -0800
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
There is an interesting archived email by Mark Birbeck at
http://www.egroups.com/message/xml-dev/18254 dealing with the opacity of
RDF musings. The part that is pertinent to many of our ruminations about
the understandability of our specs:
"One last point, I must rehearse an old argument from the days of the
namespaces debate (remember that one?!) - that it is not the
responsibility of the spec writers to make their inventions accessible.
A spec must be rigorous and avoid ambiguity so that others can implement
their software in a way that they know will be compatible with others.
Contributions to the list on how obtuse the RDF and RDFS specs are, are
pointless (as are existential debates on whether, I, the reader, am
stupid, and philosophical debates on whether it is possible for a spec
to be stupid). What we need are good illustrations and articles and this
thing will turn round fast."
Same for WCAG 2.0.
Hold the thought "*EXEMPLIFY*".
When writing checkpoints stay general/abstract but be thinking of examples
that real people can use to implement/understand/defend/question/+ the
guidelines.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2000 09:34:43 UTC