WCAG, HTML, and CSS: Maybe the Standards Need a Break
Post from June 15, 2007 (↻ August 11, 2014), reflecting Jens the Web Developer.
These worries and the related criticism appear to be valid and legitimate—there are problems with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (hopefully being addressed by the WCAG Working Group, alternatively addressed by the WCAG Samurai), there’s demand for an update of HTML (formerly addressed by the WHATWG, currently addressed by the new HTML Working Group, orchestrated by the W3C), and finally, there appear to be questions concerning the development of the CSS standard.
Let’s all try to contribute to the demanded improvements, but we’ll probably benefit from a break soon after the release of WCAG 2.0, HTML 5, and CSS 3.
Why? By then (2010?), there will be need for a look backwards and a thorough revision of these standards, mainly meaning additional quality assurance (unfortunately, the W3C process doesn’t even allow to fix typos once a spec is stable) and, above all, time for implementors. For years we’ve all been in a hurry to update and extend standards that we don’t seem to notice that our complaints about missing or false implementations might be caused by exactly that rush. (Current problems and criticism might make this sound ironic, but it’s not meant to be.)
Sure, there’s partially strong need to fix certain spec parts, but we’ll certainly benefit from a time where we explicitly want just two things: QA and rest. At the same time a “spec freeze” could allow us to focus more on learning and teaching standards.
So someday, let’s take a break.
About the Author
If you have any questions or concerns about what he writes, ask him to explain, or share your own position by sending a constructive comment or email. (And, if you think something could be of interest to Jens, recommendations for excellent literature are always welcome.)
You said: “(unfortunately, the W3C process doesn’t even allow to fix typos once a spec is stable …)”
That is plain wrong. It is called erratas and it is perfectly defined. Looked on the HTML 4.01 spec.
I have replied to Molly on the QA Weblog: Fixing the Web together.
Hi Jens. Note also that errata can be brought into the specification via the PER part of the process. For example, the XML spec is currently in its 4th edition. HTH.