RE: Guidelines or Standards

> I can't understand what we're exactly talking now, 
> and I already provided examples.

Your examples were assertions,  generalities about the kinds of things that could be problematic, or references to WCAG 1.0.

> For me isn't clear why we are discussing about 
> laws, it's not our work.

To not consider laws would be tragically myopic.

> I think that if you find 4.1 guideline is not clear 

I am not talking about guidelines, but success criteria, and not one in particular.

> If we can we could simplify the language, not the concepts.

There are examples from WCAG 1.0 where the phrasing, not the underlying concept, was the problem.  (I am thinking of P1 checkpoint 4.1 in particular and how it was omitted from 508 1194.22.)

> But maybe I simply can't see the point.

The point is that it seems to me that WCAG 2.0 should use regulatory language for the success criteria.  I am not aware of compelling reasons to the contrary, and would welcome such information.  In particular, please cite a Level 1 success criteria that would be harmed by such a reformulation.