The Samurai Errata have no official status so there are no certificates or
validators. They have "authority tone" because that's Joe Clark's style, not
because they have any authority. They are some good ideas written by some
clever people (or one clever person if you believe some of the theories).

I suspect they are hoping that the W3C adopt the Errata, which would be a
good thing in my opinion. If they do not, I suspect the Errata will have
about zero uptake in the commercial world. It's hard enough to explain the
need for accessibility without explaining that you're going to ignore the
only globally accepted set of guidelines in favour of an unofficial set
written by a self-appointed group of people, all but one of whom are
unknown.

I have submitted my comments to the Samurai, and they can be seen at
http://www.accessibility.co.uk/wcag_samurai_errata.htm

The process for commenting is a bit shambolic, and it is not clear that
comments are particularly welcome. There is no stated process, so people
have been commenting in various places in the blogs of the two peer
reviewers so they are very fragmented.

Steve

 

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tee G.Peng
Sent: 11 June 2007 07:12
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [WSG] WCAG Samurai Errata


On Jun 7, 2007, at 10:22 PM, Kane Tapping wrote:
>
> I have been reading with interest the WCAG Samurai Errata ( http:// 
> wcagsamurai.org/errata/intro.html ) and am suprised to have not found 
> it discussed on WSG as of yet.
>

Hi, I finally got a chance to read the WCAG Samurai Errata. Maybe  
something to do with my understanding in English, I see there is  
autority tone in there. Overall impression is it's a good thing, it  
seems the standard is higher (maybe it was because I am always so  
confused with the WCAG ambiguous used of language thus never able to  
fully understand) in claiming an accessible site.

Curious, is there an entity to issue certificate or safegaurd what  
sites can really claim to be WCAG Samurai Errata compliance? Will the  
validators be update to cater  for Samurai Errata? Or just our  
judegement with human eyes and best parctise be the call?

Lastly, I did not aware we can do this ? Did a brief reading in CSS 3  
spec and I tried testing it in Safari, Firefox and Opera  (thought  
one of the browsers has already supported some of CSS3 elements) but  
none of them work.
"
If images must be used for list bullets, do so only using CSS, as  
with ul { list-style: url("arrow.gif") disc }"


tee


*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************



*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************

Reply via email to