For help... 18 Aug 2008

Mickey 28 Feb 2012 05:57 PM

I don?t think that I am ?primarily mnkiag legitimacy arguments?.In this post? What is there other than the procedural legitimacy issues (consensus vs. benevolent dictatorship; forking).(Obviously, you are mnkiag substantive arguments all of the time! But I'm not addressing those.) If the W3C version was switched with the WHATWG version I would be using the HTML WG process to argue for changes. I don?t see your point.Ok, so you really do have a strong procedural motivation. Fair enough!I don?t see how your mention of the WCAG Samurai demonstrates that the W3C has a fairly mixed history in regards to accessibility, can you explain?Well, if you look at the by Joe Clark, you'll see some serious accusations, e.g., And now a word about process, which you have have to appreciate in order to understand the result. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group is the worst committee, group, company, or organization I?ve ever worked with. Several of my friends and I were variously ignored; threatened with ejection from the group or actually ejected; and actively harassed. The process is stacked in favour of multinationals with expense accounts who can afford to talk on the phone for two hours a week and jet to world capitals for meetings.The rest of the article details both substantive and procedural issues which led Clark to work outside the W3C and, in fact, to fork the spec (via errata).