- From: Julian Scarlett <Julian.Scarlett@eden.gov.uk>
- Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 15:53:55 +0100
- To: "WAI-IG" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
After over a year's absence from this list (for a variety a reasons) I resubscribed yesterday. I'm starting to regret that decision after seeing the way that good questions are side-lined in favour of a petty argument over the contextual meaning of the English language. Although of interest from a linguistic standpoint this thread is doing little to futher the cause of web accessibility. This list is meant to deal with web accessibility is it not? Take it off-list. Julian > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Kirkpatrick > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 3:46 PM > To: Randal Rust; WAI-IG > Subject: RE: Accessibility for Deaf > > > > > > > To suggest that a word > > > should never be removed from use because it is clear, even if > > > offensive, is just incorrect in my opinion. > > > > I find that interesting, because that is not at all what I said. > > You wrote: Of course, the term should be used responsibly, > but to suggest that it can be removed from context is just > plain ridiculous, especially when the context is so clear. > > I see that you wrote "remove from context", not "remove from > use". I agree that the word does have a permanent meaning in > that context, but am willing to go a step further and say > that it shouldn't be used in this context because of the > negative connotations that come from the word's origins which > were based in people's ignorance of this disability. > > AWK > > > Scanned by MessageLabs for EDC >
Received on Friday, 7 October 2005 14:56:49 UTC