RE: Guidelines or Standards

> No, we SHOULD consider that our recommendation may
> become legal constraints.

Great!  I agree.

> Laws should follow WCAG, not the opposite.

That implies that there is nothing WCAG 2.0 can learn from the laws that were informed by WCAG 1.0, and seems to contradict your first statement above.

> The problem arises with technical questions. We can't avoid this.

Can you provide an example of a more technical success criteria which is problematic to reformulate using regulatory language?

> The risk of misunderstanding when translating a tech 
> recommendation in law is always high.

Unnecessarily leaving work to legislators only increases the risk of misunderstanding.

> The error isn't due to  WCAG, is due to bad intentions 
> when writing laws (to stretch a concept to what it isn't, 
> without considering its correctness, just to have a 
> testable tool).

Could you provide an example of this?

> But we can't avoid others making error when 
> making their laws.

No, but you can significantly lessen potential mistakes by writing using regulatory language from the beginning.  Unless this introduces a new problem I am not considering?

> I hope it's clear that our work is to do a good 
> and correct standard.

I am confident that is the intention.

> Not to facilitate legislator at any cost.

But why not facilitate legislator if there is *no* cost?

> But avoiding conceptual and factual errors.

Please provide an example of a Level 1 WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria that is incompatible with regulatory language.