W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: RE 3.1 proposal - first half

From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 22:50:39 +0000 (UTC)
To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0505262243470.1015@aristotle.multipattern.com>

> GV:  create of course.

A fantastic new development!

The WCAG Working Group will now go out and invent entire new technologies 
and, after that, probably require that other people use them.

Where does this end? Why can't Working Group members cook up entirely new 
and vaguely ridiculous technologies, go out and produce a few test sites, 
declare that they work, and probably later impose them on everyone else? 
Oh, wait: That is exactly what is being proposed.

Why does this strike me as a kind of sting operation? The real Web never 
did X, so we're going to manufacture X and claim it exists in the wild.

I have another question. Why is the Working Group proposing to do this 
while it is famously incapable of heeding my many requests for *three* 
examples of *existing* sites that do or do not do a certain thing in 
question? Isn't looking up a few URLs easier than inventing new 

I suppose the plus side of this Orwellian proposal is it gets the Working 
Group out there making real Web sites, which will be a first for some 

> RE Maltese or Estonian  - they are covered because SC only applies to
> languages for which the resources exist.

Oh, but wait. There are no resources for cascading dictionaries now; 
that's why we're going to go out and create them. Are you implying that if 
a language has no "resources" at present, it is automatically exempted 
from certain guidelines? Which ones? And when does that exemption 


     Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
     Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
       --What's wrong with top-posting?
Received on Thursday, 26 May 2005 22:50:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:39 UTC