- From: zara <catherine.roy@w3qc.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:38:01 -0800 (PST)
- To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
- Cc: "Guide Lines list" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Bruce Bailey wrote: > The argument seems to be that since we can’t do this for *all* languages > it would not be fair to do it for *any*. That may seem to be the argument for you but that is certainly not what I said. I essentially suggested the pertinence of considering another aspect, i.e. the fact that regulatory language for one country may not necessarily suit others, due to language and legal tradition or culture. To borrow your expression, it would be “tragically myopic” not to consider that the rest of the planet does not necessarily write law according to your country’s conventions. >> Rewording will be inevitable > > I also understand this point too. However, is there not the possibility > that using regulatory language for the English version might actually > *help* with translations? It would be difficult to say until I have seen the reformulations and I certainly will not speak for the whole field. My point was (and I admit to having an interest in making translations easier) clear, well written guidelines will be beneficial for all, regardless of language or culture, something I am certain everyone has in mind. That being said, I hope I did not get things too off track. Best regards, Catherine -- Catherine Roy, consultante www.catherine-roy.net 514.525.9490
Received on Thursday, 1 December 2005 06:38:14 UTC