Re: One more time: Words have meaning

In a message dated 03/09/2002 03:33:39 GMT Daylight Time, ian@hixie.ch 
writes:


> Not necessarily dictatorial. 

But not necessarily non-dictatorial?

> Merely agreed upon by all parties.

"All parties"?? ... Nobody asked me, for example. So what does "all" mean 
here? "All" has precise semantics but those are not the semantics you are 
applying.

Are you seriously suggesting that "all parties" are actually around the 
table?

And if "all parties" don't agree? Then what? You dictate, no? :)
> 
> 
> Read http://www.w3.org/TR/xag.html

Again? It was awful the last time I read it. :)

> 
> I don't mean skim it. I mean read it. The whole thing.

It's a typical first draft with many rough edges, including non-well-formed 
code in places.

It hasn't improved even slightly since the last time I read it. :)

Did you have a more precise point about the XML Accessibility Guidelines? 

By the semantics of W3C Process the XML Accessibility Guidelines are WAY 
overdue for a re-write, which will hopefully address some of the obvious 
rough edges of the first WD. 

It would also be highly beneficial if the spam were removed from the comments 
list for WAI - it might even make sensible discussion on that list 
accessible. :)

Andrew Watt