E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 4 (In chronological order)

From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Tue, Oct 26 2004 10:00AM
Subject: Standards Body (was Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: WAI Icons. Was: Include default text?)
No previous message | Next message →

jkorpela wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, iain wrote:
>
>>> And from the formal
>>> standpoint, the W3C doesn't even claim to be a standards body; it
>>> is an industry consortium
>>
>> I think you are incorrect. The W3C defines the standards.
>
> Occasional abuse of the word "standard" does not make the W3C a
> standards body.
>
> Recognized international standardizing bodies are listed at
> http://www.wssn.net/WSSN/listings/links_international.html
> You won't find the W3C there.


Hmmm....

While the W3C is *not* a standards body per say, the ISO (International
Standards Organization) has essentially assigned standards development and
creation regarding web technologies to the W3C - making them the defacto
standards body whether they admit to it or not.

1) The "Standard" for HTML is actually a Joint Statement from both the ISO
and the IEC (the International Electrotechnical Commission) - ISO/IEC
15445:2000(E). This International Standard makes normative reference to the
W3C Recommendation for HTML 4.01, making the W3C document the "official"
reference. See: http://www.cs.tcd.ie/15445/15445.HTML


1) Recently, the ISO issued an interpretation regarding the commercial use
of ISO Language, Country and Currency Codes. The W3C, as a "standards" body
issued an official letter
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2003JulSep/0213.html)
to the ISO suggesting that the position/thinking that the ISO was taking
regarding the use of these codes would have serious negative impacts on the
"industry". The long and short of it is that currently the ISO appears to
be backing down. (http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2003-09-20-a.html)

So... If the W3C is providing normative documents to the ISO, and effecting
the thinking and direction of the ISO, then by broader definition, I would
argue they are a Standards Body.

JF
--
John Foliot = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca 1.866.932.4878 (North America)

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Tue, Oct 26 2004 11:01AM
Subject: Re: Standards Body (was Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: WAI Icons. Was: Include default text?)
← Previous message | Next message →

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, foliot wrote:

> 1) The "Standard" for HTML is actually a Joint Statement from both the ISO
> and the IEC

No, it's not the "Standard" but the standard. The only one. And it's an
uninteresting and widely unknown standard, as standards often are.

But why discuss about HTML standards and "standards"? The HTML
specifications by the W3C are far more closer to standards in their
rigorousness than WCAG 1.0 is, so you can't really justify calling
WCAG 1.0 as a standard by the purported standards-like nature of HTML
specs. (Besides, the ISO and the IEC did quite some work to convert the
HTML specification into a standard, and still produced something that
looks like a quickly written spec transmogrified into a standard-like
shape.)

> So... If the W3C is providing normative documents to the ISO, and effecting
> the thinking and direction of the ISO, then by broader definition, I would
> argue they are a Standards Body.

If you go along such lines, you should also call Microsoft and other major
companies Standards Bodies, shouldn't you?

WCAG 1.0 is not a standard-like document in content and essence, no matter
what its formal status is (and we know that it is a recommendation that is
not maintained - all work is directing towards souping up something
completely different, WCAG 2.0). If you take a page, can you objectively
decide whether it complies with WCAG 1.0, or with a particular item in
WCAG 1.0? Phoney checkers claim that they can. But we should know better.
If you try to make different people evaluate a page against WCAG 1.0,
then, if those people understand WCAG 1.0 at least minimally, you will
have endless talk about compliance or non-compliance. And not just
arguments but reasoned arguments. This is what we should expect when we
have a set of recommendations, not a standard.

--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

From: James Pickering
Date: Tue, Oct 26 2004 11:17AM
Subject: Re: Standards Body (was Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: WAI Icons. Was: Include default text?)
← Previous message | Next message →

I have written all of my Web pages in (Validated) ISO-HTML. For further
information please visit:

FAQ: http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?ISO-HTML_Summary

ISO/HTML User's Guide http://www.cs.tcd.ie/15445/UG.html

James Pickering

Pickering Pages
http://www.jp29.org/


----- Original Message -----
From: "foliot"
To: "WebAIM Discussion List"
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:00 AM
Subject: [WebAIM] Standards Body (was Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: WAI Icons. Was:
Include default text?)



jkorpela wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, iain wrote:
>
>>> And from the formal
>>> standpoint, the W3C doesn't even claim to be a standards body; it
>>> is an industry consortium
>>
>> I think you are incorrect. The W3C defines the standards.
>
> Occasional abuse of the word "standard" does not make the W3C a
> standards body.
>
> Recognized international standardizing bodies are listed at
> http://www.wssn.net/WSSN/listings/links_international.html
> You won't find the W3C there.


Hmmm....

While the W3C is *not* a standards body per say, the ISO (International
Standards Organization) has essentially assigned standards development and
creation regarding web technologies to the W3C - making them the defacto
standards body whether they admit to it or not.

1) The "Standard" for HTML is actually a Joint Statement from both the ISO
and the IEC (the International Electrotechnical Commission) - ISO/IEC
15445:2000(E). This International Standard makes normative reference to the
W3C Recommendation for HTML 4.01, making the W3C document the "official"
reference. See: http://www.cs.tcd.ie/15445/15445.HTML


1) Recently, the ISO issued an interpretation regarding the commercial use
of ISO Language, Country and Currency Codes. The W3C, as a "standards" body
issued an official letter
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2003JulSep/0213.html)
to the ISO suggesting that the position/thinking that the ISO was taking
regarding the use of these codes would have serious negative impacts on the
"industry". The long and short of it is that currently the ISO appears to
be backing down. (http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2003-09-20-a.html)

So... If the W3C is providing normative documents to the ISO, and effecting
the thinking and direction of the ISO, then by broader definition, I would
argue they are a Standards Body.

JF
--
John Foliot = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca 1.866.932.4878 (North America)

----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Tue, Oct 26 2004 11:37AM
Subject: Re: Standards Body
← Previous message | No next message

jkorpela wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, foliot wrote:
>
>> 1) The "Standard" for HTML is actually a Joint Statement from both
>> the ISO and the IEC
>
> No, it's not the "Standard" but the standard. The only one.
> And it's an
> uninteresting and widely unknown standard, as standards often are.
>
> But why discuss about HTML standards and "standards"?

Because you asserted that the W3C is not a Standards Body - a claim I
fundamentally disagree with. They are the defacto standards body... ISO
essentially rubber stamps work that comes out of the W3C.



>
> If you go along such lines, you should also call Microsoft
> and other major
> companies Standards Bodies, shouldn't you?

To an extent, yes. Someone who claims to be MSCE, has completed the
proscribed courses and testing applied by their author (and by extension
Standards Creator) - Microsoft. Their specs, their code, their rules, their
title. Do what is required, and you have the right to claim you are MSCE.

>
> WCAG 1.0 is not a standard-like document in content and
> essence, no matter
> what its formal status is

No argument here. I am on record many, many times as stating such. I have
also written about the need to have accountability in compliance testing, as
I too agree that the numerous icons (Bobby, et al) are alone, nothing more
than a waste of bandwidth
(http://wats.ca/articles/accountabilityinaccessibilitytesting/54)


> If you try to make different people evaluate a page against WCAG 1.0,
> then, if those people understand WCAG 1.0 at least minimally, you will
> have endless talk about compliance or non-compliance. And not just
> arguments but reasoned arguments. This is what we should
> expect when we
> have a set of recommendations, not a standard.

As this list and others amply illustrate.

We are on the same page here. The greater problem is that the W3C have been
thrust into the role of needing to provide a measurable set of standards, to
a topic which cannot be measured as such. We all know this, and it's a
Catch-22 for the W3C as they rightly know that they can never author such a
document. However, from a legal perspective, large organizations and
governments have a civil rights need to provide a level of compliancy - and
most take the easy way out and point to the "experts/standards" people.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the W3C refuse to be acknowledged as
a Standards Body? While Section 508 is flawed and (IMHO) why too
simplistic, at least the US Government took it upon themselves to author an
internal standard, in the language of standards (measurable results to
defined outcomes).

WCAG 2.0, as a best practices document may eventually be useful, but it will
never succeed in being a standards document. The W3C must create a
Standards document, albeit one which will be flawed in addressing all
aspects of Universal Web Accessibility, but one which can be measured,
tested (preferably machine tested) and documented. Then, organizations
which *NEED* to have a measured compliancy level will have such a document.
This foreseen document would require the appropriate disclaimer and outline
it's shortcomings as part of it's statement, but at least would exist as an
independent, 3rd party standard which can be referenced to. Not perfect, but
better... (and way better than what we have now)


Why the WAI have let EARL languish in the sidelines continues to be a
mystery to me - it, more than anything else, may be the way to extract
themselves from this quagmire - associating an ascertation document to a
page shifts the burden of proof (and responsibility) to the actual
developer/tester, and away from the need to have a shopping list of
ambiguous checkpoints and undefined standards all wrapped up with a tiny
little icon of a British Traffic cop with a wheelchair on his head.


JF
--
John Foliot = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca 1.866.932.4878 (North America)