W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: standard vs guideline

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 07:55:39 -0500 (EST)
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
cc: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0203060751510.6890-100000@tux.w3.org>
Anyone can call anything a standard. It isn't some magic reserved name, it is
actually a word that describes the thing which people all use (so in fact
many so-called standards are not) or agree to use as the measure or
interface they provide for outside evaluation or use.

Beyond which, I don't personally think that it matters a great deal what they
are called - if someone advances a sufficiently compelling case for one name
or another I am ready to be convinced.



On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

  At 6:16 PM -0600 3/5/02, Phill Jenkins wrote:
  >Should W3C rename the WAI guidelines as standards?

  Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that since W3C isn't an
  official standards-making body, nothing can be legitimately called a
  "standard"; it's a reserved word. However, "specification" should be
  available for use.

  I agree that the term "guideline" is problematic, because it
  carries an implication of "suggestion" which is not really what we
  are trying to accomplish nor is it in line with the way the
  "guidelines" are written.  (If we are truly writing "guidelines"
  then WCAG 2.0 would look more like advice and less like

  Anyway, I suspect this won't change, even if it really should.


Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2002 07:55:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:07 UTC