- From: Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 09:55:31 -0700
- To: "Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) wrote: >We are talking now instead to some (and seems minor) group inside the working group that said that there are no possibility to set as level 1 due that web-hobbist are not ready. > > Note that many of the WG that met in Brussels probably have been in transit. I may be (almost) alone in arguing the point, but I'm not outnumbered. It's also not about "hobbyists". It's about most of the authors on the Web -- and the vast majority of existing authoring tools. You're painting this as a small problem with some bad actors. Since it's been my full-time job for the last three years to fix problems like this, I can guarantee you that it is far more widespread. In fact, it's the status quo. It's simply not something we can legislate away. >I remade my question: can a w3c rec. authorize violation of another w3c rec.? I think is not allowed, but I ask to chair to check with Protocol and Formats working group. > > Roberto, you do know that I'm the staff contact of the PFWG, right? I've also spoken with one of the HTML WG co-chairs, and while he agrees that it's a tough problem, he does recognize that this WG isn't here to enforce his WG's specs, but to aid accessibility. I will also take this to PF, but I think you're just shopping for someone who supports your point of view. And again, silence is not authorization. How many times do I have to say that? >So making this violation means that I haven't access to a wcag 2.0 Level 1 web site with my webTV or my Firefox browser. This is accessibility for all or is accessibility at level 1 granted to vendors that produce tools that don't generate valid code? > > Take it to AU. That's where discussion of authoring tool output belongs. In fact, I've done it for you. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2005AprJun/0074.html - m
Received on Saturday, 18 June 2005 16:55:37 UTC