On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Gil Andre wrote: > > Janina, > > Couple of quick remarks... Nothing personal, or course. <grin> Hey, Gil: No offense takine, of course! <grinning back> > > On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:37:00 -0400 (EDT), Janina wrote: > > Perhaps, but it lacks one very salient ingrediant. It doesn't > > have community consensus as W3C html does. > > Community consensus on w3html? Really? > > If that's the case, how come some web site will refuse access > to users who do not have "Internet Explorer version xxx or > better?". Well, you misunderstand what I'm saying, or perhaps I need to say it more clearly. The consensus I refer to are the various web related standards generated through the W3C. Clearly, the Web Accessibility Initiative's specifications are consensus standards reached after years of effort among many capable people from around the world--and the table was an open table. Furthermore, my use of "consensus" holds for all other W3C specifications in that all are required to undergo review by the WAI before they become W3C recommendations. This is the consensus I'm speaking of. Whether or not any particular web site follows W3C's guidance, or simply ignores it, is another matter altogether. I am certainly not suggesting that web sites on the Internet are designed by consensus. That is almost never the case as we all know.