Re: One more time: Words have meaning

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, wrote:
>> Not necessarily dictatorial.  
> But not necessarily non-dictatorial?

The entire W3C process is dictatorial (by design), and as I support
the W3C process, no, not necessariy non-dictatorial.

>> Merely agreed upon by all parties.
> "All parties"?? ... Nobody asked me, for example.

Actually, you were asked when XHTML went into "Last Call".

> So what does "all" mean here? "All" has precise semantics but those
> are not the semantics you are applying.

"All" means the authors of documents using the languages used (on the
web, this is typically XHTML) and the UAs that interpret said
languages (such as search engines, aural web browsers, CSS engines).

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

In a non-literal sense, yes. This is why W3C drafts are public and why
working groups are forced to publically respond to _every_ comment
received in their disposition of comments.

> And if "all parties" don't agree? Then what? You dictate, no? :)

Compromise is the politically correct term, but yes.

>> Read
> Again?

You appear to be missing the point then.

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

Yes. XML languages, to be accessible (and this doesn't only mean for
disabled users or users willing to read raw markup) have to be
well-defined and carefully constructed.

You can't take a random XML document in an unknown namespace and
_guess_ at what the author meant. That simply doesn't work.

And if you claim otherwise, I urge you to show the web an example of
such a magical UA, because nothing short of that is likely to convince
the people designing the technologies involved.

Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 10:27:04 UTC