The Balisage 2008 program committee met this week, and we now have a preliminary program. (As I write, the schedule-at-a-glance isn’t up yet, but it really should be up any moment now.)

We’ve got a good range of topics, with talks on resource-oriented architectures and a framework for managing constraints and how markup relates to the philosophical problem of universals and how to handle overlap in a format that makes good use of the non-overlapping properties of XML. And a parallel algorithm for XML parsing and validation that exploits multiple-core machines, and an XML Exchange for messaging that uses XQuery to route messages, and structural metadata as a socio-technological problem and using the Atom Publishing Protocol to build dynamic applications.

The day before Balisage begins, there will be a one-day symposium on versioning issues, which has also shaped up very nicely. (More on that in another post.)

Great topics, great people (I’ve heard a lot of these speakers, and I know they’re good), and Montreal in August. What more could you want?

So think hard about being in Montreal the week of 11-15 August, for the versioning symposium and for Balisage 2008. I look forward to seeing people there!

ok. The title is a bit of a stretching. WAI stands for Web Accessibility Initiative. My arms are really becoming too short. I love reading. I have 1h30 of commuting in the morning by train and bus, and the same in the evening. I love this precious time in the train that I use for reading. For the last 6 months, I have an issue. I need to put my book farther and farther from me to have a comfortable reading. Yeah! you can say it, I'm getting old. sigh…

The WAI-AGE project has just published a document explaining the needs of older people with Web accessibility needs due to ageing. There is a lot of information in this report.

Depending on the organizations, an older adult is a person who is 50+, 60+ years old. They are not technophobes. Far to be, I know a few older adult persons in my friends, who spend almost more time than me on the Web, searching for information of any kind.

Web Accessibility for Older Users: A Literature Review is a very good read, easy to understand.

More details

A whiteboard is an online shared space where two (or more) distant persons can edit the same document in real time. It creates an instant social interaction around a document.

I have spotted on Ferris at least two projects which are (or in the process of) using a combination of SVG and XMPP for creating whiteboards.

• Coccinella. The Mats Bengtsson said recently: "The canvas widget in Tcl/Tk is way too limited to use as a basis to implement SVG support on the scripting level. For some time I have therefore developed the tkpath package which adds all needed drawing elements from SVG, see some shots, using the C plug in structure. However, this is too limited for SVG and its underlying XML tree structure."
• TransVerse. Boyd Fletcher said: "As part of our work on whiteboarding, we have developed a Wildfire plugin that implements multi-user Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) based whiteboarding over XMPP with full support for multi-user file transfer for binary image transmission."

Niklas has also made a proposal for a protocol for whiteboarding in Jabber using SVG and XMPP.

In R.U.R. (Rossum´s Universal Robots) by Karel Čapek, Dr. Hellman, Psychologist-in-Chief, says:

Dr. Hellman (at door, left) Music is a wonderful thing, you know. You should have been listening. There's something ennobling about it, soothing …

We like it too. The Web has given a unique opportunity for everyone to link data, to share, to reuse and create. BBC is one of my favourite source of news. I like their site and I like their mission statement. Tom Scott (BBC Radio Labs) says in a blog post on helping machines play with programmes.

As part of our work on developing BBC Programmes we have been looking at how we can make the data available for other development teams outside the BBC.

and

We have been following the Linked Data approach - namely thinking of URIs as more than just locations for documents. Instead using them to identify anything, from a particular person to a particular programme. These resources in-turn have representations, which can be machine-processable (through the use of RDF, Microformats, RDFa, etc.), and these representations can hold links towards further web resources, allowing agents to jump from one dataset to another.

He is asking the community for comments around the RDF version of their schedules before publishing them along the other formats. There is also a cool demo which sends you notification of programme start. It should not be too hard to plug that into a Jabber client. In their demo, they are using Growl.

A very detailed overview of the strengths and (often many!) limitations of current mobile Web browsers:

Werner Ruotsalainen - Web Browsing on Three Handheld Platforms (Windows Mobile, Symbian, BlackBerry) (covers some Linux as well)

(presented at Hungarian W3C office event last week)

Seventeeth months ago, the W3C Team started to look into a somewhat new area for W3C, eGovernment. You know, the way in which government agencies, departments and the like are using technology (mainly the Web) to develop services and communicate with their citizenry, the industry and between themselves.

Why? Well, the massive use of Web technology to develop and deploy those services already made the Web a crucial tool for eGovernment.

We have learned quite a number of things so far. Services are getting more and more sophisticated. It's not just that you can get information online or download a form, fill it and walk to a government office in person to give it to a public servant. You can do the whole process online. What is more, in some cases, the "paper" service is even disappearing and users are faced with just its online incarnation.

At this moment in time, is more important than ever to do things well, and Web standards are in the heart of it. In the rest of this post, I review some of the most important challenges we found so far, and what we are proposing to tackle them.

Governments are spending huge amounts of money in building those services but their usage (especially of those availables for citizens) is low. Originally, governments were putting services out there in the same way they've been doing for years. You, as a potential user, need to know what government agency is in charge of a given service in order to be able to find it and use it. This was not working well. Citizens are not aware of the government internal structure. Fortunately, things are changing and governments are putting strong effort in building a citizen-centric experience. This means that they put themselves in the role of their users and try to build what the users expect. Part of this effort are the so called "one-stop stops", government portals where, no matter what agency or department is in charge of a given service, are built in terms a user can understand and make available the whole offer of government services on the Web.

Governments are finding benefits in using open standards, so many W3C standards are used to build those portals and services, and the Web Accessibility Content Guidelines (closer to turn 2.0) are among the most widely known and used. What is more, many are building their own National Guidelines for Public Sector Websites or, more generally, their Open Standards policies on their own.

Going back to the portals. Do you know what the one of your government is? Don't be afraid if not. Most don't. And most of the times the number of services available there are in the several hundreds or well over a thousand ones... Anyway, you try going to a search engine and many times you find the information you are looking for somewhere else or don't find it at all.

Governments are recently putting much effort in engaging users in the use of these online services. The portals are a step in the right direction and another is to put the information where the users are looking for it, on the Web sites they use regularly to find videos, photos, information. This requires more resources and new expertise and new challenges arise. For example, if a government agency puts up a blog and get comments, what should it do with them? What if those comments could eventually improve the information that the government already had about the information exposed? How do the new information compare to the authoritative one that the agency already had in its systems? All good questions, most still unsolved.

This increasing effort in getting the users participating more is also accompanied by a increasing one in getting the most information out there for them, also not without challenges. It's usually very difficult to discriminate from the information the government already has, which one can be made public a which one cannot. In case of doubt, government tends not to release information. It's too risky.

There is a clear need to improve information systems. They need to evolve into smarter ones. On one hand, it's important to annotate the provenance of the data archived there somehow, so other systems could query it and learn for what purpose that data was collected and if it's reusable or not and until what extent. On the other, it's about time to end with information silos and achieve a seamless integration of data. Semantic Web is here to help and there is an increasing number of successful use cases already. And once you are there, why not open your data? I'm sure you are aware of the usefulness of many application mashups, can you imagine what new possibilities government data mashups can open? Maybe the Open Government Data Principles could give you a hint on why this would be a good idea.

Is this all? Of course, it's not. There are other eGovernment challenges out there (identity, security, integrity...) and some are not just government specific but would need a solution somewhere else (e.g. other technical Activities at W3C), but we believe we need to start simple and somewhere, and these are the most important and the ones that came up more often during the exploratory work so far.

We believe that the challenges described here are common to governments all over the World and that a collaborative effort between governments, industry, citizens, academia and other civil societies would have a strong beneficial impact in addressing them.

If you find this interesting, you are welcome to join us in the W3C Australia eGovernment Tour 2008, four talks in three cities in seven days, coming soon to a city nearby (if you are in Australia, that is) and take a look at what we proposed as a next step at W3C and comment on it, the sooner the better.

Just discovered - Francois explaining Mobile Web Best Practices, MobileOK and the checker at W3C's booth at this years Mobile World Congress (formerly known as 3GSM) in Barcelona.

Sometimes ignorance really is bliss.

If I had normal mathematical training, I would probably know the answers to some of the questions that have been puzzling me lately. But I would have missed the fun of figuring out the answers for myself.

Consider a relation R on some domain, and consider its transitive closure R*. Or, for some purposes, consider its positive transitive closure R+.

Now, sometimes when one is interested both in R and in R*, it seems convenient to have R be as small as it is possible to make it, as long as the transitive closure remains the same. So if there are any ‘redundant’ members of R — members that we can remove without changing R*, we would like to remove them. Since this operation feels like the opposite of transitive closure, I have privately called it “transitive aperture” since I first encountered it nine or ten years ago.

Given two relations R and R’, R’ is a transitive aperture of R if and only if R’ is a subset of R and R’* = R*. R’ is a minimal transitive aperture of R if and only if R’ has no subset R” such that R”* = R’* = R*.

For example: consider the < (less-than) relation on integers. It’s clear (a) that the transitive closure of < is < itself, and (b) that the successor relation on integers (1 = succ(0), 2 = succ(1), etc.) has the same transitive closure. It’s also clear (intuitively — I haven’t tried a proof) that if you omit anything from the successor relation, its transitive closure won’t be <, so the successor relation is apparently a minimal transitive aperture of <.

Now, in all the examples I’ve thought of so far, it’s been obvious both how to calculate the minimal transitive aperture of a given relation, and that there was only one.

But I’ve been asking myself several questions recently. Can I define the notion of minimal transitive aperture cleanly? Does every relation have one? Is it unique? I.e., does every relation have exactly one? Is there an algorithm for finding a minimal transitive aperture for an arbitrary relation?

I spent some time thinking about this today, while driving to Santa Fe and back, and I believe I know some of the answers. I think the definition above is clean and precise. And I think it’s obvious that there’s an algorithm for finding all minimal transitive apertures for any finite relation. (It’s finite, right? Take all the subsets and see if they are (a) a transitive aperture of R and (b) a minimal transitive aperture — if R is finite, then R has a finite number of subsets, so the algorithm will terminate. I didn’t say it was fast, I just said there’s an algorithm.) I don’t know whether there’s an algorithm for infinite relations. And it’s clear that for some relations, there is more than one minimal transitive aperture. But I don’t have time tonight to sketch any of this. I shouldn’t be writing this in the first place, I should be packing for a trip, but I wanted to get at least the formulation of the problem down.

The idea can also be formulated in terms of graphs. Take any directed graph G; you have a set of nodes and a relation on that set. Take the transitive closure of that relation, and draw another graph T with the same set of nodes as G, and arcs representing the transitive closure of the arcs of G. Call T the transitive closure of G, or the reachability graph of G. (For any two nodes n and m, there is an arc from n to m in T if and only if m is reachable from n in G.) A transitive aperture of G is a digraph with the same set of nodes, a subset of G’s arcs, and the same reachability graph.

It’s clear, as I say, that there can be multiple minimal apertures that have the same transitive closure. Any graph of three nodes a, b, c with a cycle among all three nodes a → b → c → a will do to show this: its transitive closure is a complete graph of three nodes. But a → c → b → a has the same transitive closure. QED.

So it’s clear that for digraphs with cycles, there may be multiple minimal transitive apertures.

And for acyclic digraphs?

During W3C's bi-annual member meeting, I presented a few slides on where we see the Mobile Web Initiative going in the future - copied below.

We'd be interested in your feedback, so see question at end.

Mobile: Where do we stand?

• More powerful mobile browsers/devices
• More flat rate data plans
• Mobile Web access growing: users, revenue, #conferences, ...
• See mobile access happening
  
  • Bango Analytics live
  • Admob Live display of
    mobile ad requests

MWI: Where do we stand?

• Best Practices for content that works well on mobile
• mobileOK Basic for automated testing of content
• mobileOK Basic Checker online tool and open-source library
  
  • google.com
  • Wikipedia
  • Cebit
  • Tagesschau
  • ...
• Ongoing
  
  • Content Transformation Guidelines for transcoding
  • API and Vocabulary for accessing device information databases
  • mobileOK pro
  • ...

Future Priority: Mobile Web Applications

• Why?
  
  • More user friendly than mobile browsing (mail access, timetables, weather info, ...)
  • May be easier to develop+install than traditional mobile applications (chat, social software, games ...)
• Goal: Turn Web/Ajax into delivery platform for mobile applications (as on desktop)
• Work at W3C has started
  
  • Mobile Ajax workshop (with Open Ajax Alliance)
  • Best Practices 2.0 for mobile Web applications (desktop apps unusable)
  • API access to phone location, contact database, calendar, camera, ... (security workshop)
  • Widgets (lots of fragmentation)

Future Priority: Improving Standards Compliance and Testing

• No "dominant browser" in mobile
• Non-standards compliance even bigger problem for developers than on desktop
• W3C work has started
  
  • Test harness simplifies testing Web specs on mobile device, 45K results collected via "crowdsourcing"
  • Web compatibility test to check "difficult" feature support (ACID inspired)

But of course, the mobile community is bigger than just W3C members ...

So, where do you see the mobile Web going in the next few years?

And what do you think should be the contribution of W3C's Mobile Web Initiative?

Share your thoughts below!

W3C organized a workshop on Video on the Web in December 2007 in order to share current experiences and examine the technologies (see report). Online video content and demand is increasing rapidly, becoming omnipresent on the Web and the trend will continue for at least a few years. These rapid changes are posing challenges to the underlying technologies and standards that support the platform-independent creation, authoring, encoding/decoding, and description of video. To ensure the success of video as a "first class citizen" of the Web, the community needs to build a solid architectural foundation that enables people to create, navigate, search, and distribute video, and to manage digital rights.

The general scope of the proposed Video on the Web activity is to provide cohesion in the video related activities of W3C, as well helping other W3C Groups in their effort to provide video functionalities. In addition, this activity will focus at implementing the next steps from the W3C workshop on Video on the Web. The proposal is to create 3 new Working Groups around Video on the Web. Please, have a look at the following documents:

1. Activity proposal
2. Media Fragments Working Group Charter
3. Media Best Practices and Guidelines Working Group Charter
4. Media Annotations Working Group Charter

We welcome general feedback, general expressions of interest (or lack of!) and comments on the discussion list public-video-comments@w3.org.

If you should have questions or need further information, please feel free to contact me as well. I will be presenting the activity proposal during the Web Conference next week, on Thursday afternoon.

On Google's blog, Mark Davis is explaining that Google is moving to Unicode 5.1. The article unfortunately mixes unicode and utf-8 as it has been noticed by David Goodger in Unicode misinformation. But the really interesting bit is the growth of utf-8 on the Web. These data should be interesting for the development of http, html 5 and validators.

© graph from Google.

In an new report, the audience measurement company Nielsen (known for their TV "Nielsen ratings") reports that for many "leading Internet sites", an average of 13% of users access the site only from their mobile device (data appears to be for the US for Q4 2007).

Mobile-only use varies by category of the site - here is the percentage of mobile-only users per category:

1. Weather: 22%
2. Entertainment: 22%
3. Games: 15%
4. Music: 15%
5. Email: 11%
6. Sports: 10%
7. Business/Finance: 4%
8. Social Networking: 3%
9. Search: 2%
10. Shopping/Auctions: 1%

I have noticed a discussion (I have cut some parts for readability) about vertical layout for text from the participants of the HTML WG.

<Hixie> ok for canvas text my proposal is:

<Hixie> drawHString(x, y, maxWidth, textAlign, s); and drawHString(x, y, maxHeight, textAlign, s);

<Hixie> drawVString(...) for the second one

<Lachy> what's the difference between them? drawVString for vertical stings where the letters are stacked on top of each other, and not just rotated 90 deg?

<Philip`> Hixie: They look complex and hard to use :-p

<Philip`> compared to e.g. translate(x,y);drawString(s)

<Hixie> lachy: drawVString() would be for vertical text (e.g. some CJK)

<Hixie> one is lack of support for vertical text :-)

In printed media, it is handled quite well for a long time. Japanese books have some complex layouts mixing western and japanese characters.

It happens not only in CJK (Chinese Japanese Korean) texts. Think about a neon sign of an hotel with the letters written vertically.

Felix Sasaki is my colleague at W3C/Keio and has worked with the Japanese Layout Task Force. He was sitting next to me when I was reading the logs of the discussion, so I just asked him some references. He sent me a link to 1.3 Directional Factors in Japanese Text Layout from the Requirements of Japanese Text Layout. He also reminded me about XSL 1.1: 7.29.3 "glyph-orientation-vertical" .

Wikipedia has a page on the topic of Horizontal and vertical writing in East Asian scripts and Unicode a note on Robust Vertical Text Layout.

All of that should help to define the API for Canvas Text.

The Semantic Web Activity home page has a number of information that might be of interest for the Semantic Web (eg, for data integration). These include: references to existing recommendations, talks on the subject made by working group members or the W3C staff, references to active groups, etc. Ie, it sounds like a good idea to make these available in RDF, too. Of course one could achieve that by publishing two files: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Overview.html for the HTML version and a separate http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Overview.rdf for RDF (remember that W3C’s Apache setup is such that the default index file is called “Overview”). But this would lead to versioning problems; not a good idea!

This is where RDFa comes into the picture: don’t duplicate information if you can avoid it. Instead, add the RDFa attributes to the HTML file and let the machines do the rest. And this is what has been done. If you look under the hood, http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Overview.html is, in fact, in RDFa, ie, the core (X)HTML information is enriched with some attributes that allows the automatic generation of corresponding RDF data.

The best is, of course, to look at the source to see the details; here is just an example. This is, essentially, how an entry on a recommendation looks like in XHTML+RDFa:

<li resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/">
  <a rel="doc:versionOf" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar" property="dc:title">RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised)</a>,
  <span rel="rdf:type" resource="[tr:REC]">W3C Recommendation,</span>
  <span property="dc:date" content="2004-02-10">February 10, 2004,</span>
  <span rel="tr:editor"><span typeof="contact:Person" property="contact:fullName">Dave Beckett</span></span>, ed.
</li>

yielding, in RDF:

<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/> a tr:REC;
     dc:date "2004-02-10";
     dc:title "RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised)";
     doc:versionOf <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar>;
     tr:editor
         [ a contact:Person;
             contact:fullName "Dave Beckett"
         ].

using a number of existing vocabularies (eg, Dublin Core or the “TR” vocabulary that W3C has been using for years to describe its documents).

So how would one set up the server to get the right version of the documents for the right request? Although, at some point in time, one could expect that (RDF) browsers will just pick up the RDF information automatically, what to do in the meantime? What one would like to have is:

• http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/ should return
  • XHTML by default
  • RDF/XML or Turtle if so requested by the client, generated from the XHTML file on-the-fly via an RDFa processor
• http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Overview.rdf should return RDF/XML, generated on-the-fly
• http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Overview.ttl should return RDF in Turtle, again generated on-the-fly
• http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Overview.html should return, obviously, XHTML

A bit of Apache Wizzardy works here. First a special Apache file is created to control content negotiation. The usual setup is to associate this to the “var” extension, ie, Overview.var in this case. The file itself looks fairly simple:

URI: Overview

URI: Overview.html
Content-Type: text/html

URI: Overview.rdf
Content-Type: application/rdf+xml; qs=0.4

URI: Overview.ttl
Content-Type: text/turtle; qs=0.5

that will instruct the Apache server to choose the right file depending on the accept header. HTML will be returned if both HTML and RDF/XML are accepted; and Turtle is preferred if both RDF/XML and Turtle are accepted by the client (that is the role of those “qs” values).

That takes care of the content negotiations, but we are not yet done because, remember, the goal is to generate the RDF/XML and Turtle versions on-the-fly. This is achieved by adding the following lines to the .htaccess file in the directory:

RewriteEngine On
RewriteBase /2001/sw/
RewriteRule Overview.rdf /2007/08/pyRdfa/extract?uri=http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Overview.html [L]
RewriteRule Overview.ttl /2007/08/pyRdfa/extract?format=turtle&uri=http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Overview.html [L]

that instructs the server to run a script (ie, the RDFa distiller) on the (X)HTML file when an RDF/XML or Turtle versions are required.

That is it… (And thanks to Ralph Swick and Tim Berners-Lee who gave me the right push and information to handle Apache.)

Terry Goodkind said:

The mice think they are right, but my cat eats them anyways. This is the point, reality is nothing, perception is everything.

We all live in our own world of perceptions and the world is shaped with these. I have read recently read a blog post by Arnaud Le Hors saying:

Having been primarily involved in W3C both as a staff member and a member company representative I had grown to expect a certain quality level which has led me to be genuinely baffled by the whole OOXML experience. I just didn’t know how superior the W3C process was compared to that of ECMA and ISO/IEC. I just didn’t know those organizations had processes which are so broken that they would allow such a parody of a standards development to take place and such a low quality specification to be eventually endorsed as an international standard.

There have been discussions within the W3C for a long time as to whether it should seek to become a PAS submitter and adopt a policy to systematically submit its standards to ISO/IEC. I used to think it should. I no longer think so. The W3C process is so superior to that of ECMA and ISO/IEC, it’s these organizations that need to learn from W3C and those who are working for the W3C standard label to be recognized at an international level in its own right have all my support.

Arnaud's words touched me; the full article is worth reading. It reminded me of my time working with Web technologies (in Web design agencies and organizations) prior to my W3C hiring. I was very condemning about W3C and its standards development. Then with time, with the accumulation of experiences and understanding, I realized (more than knowing) that the platform which is offered by W3C is a good compromise.

For sure, my words will be taken suspiciously because I'm right now an employee of W3C. Nothing is perfect at W3C. There are still issues, but the organization is flexible enough that it knows how to evolve when necessary. People have a tendency to forget this. When I have been hired almost 8 years ago, the notion of test suites for a W3C specification to be published was considered as a big burden and not in the scope of W3C Working Groups. One of the reasons, I had been hired at this time was to change this mindset. It has been hard, painful sometimes, but we did it. The "we" include some W3C members, the wonderful participants of the former QA Working Group and the dedicated work of the W3C QA Team, including Dominique Hazaël-Massieux, Olivier Théreaux and myself.

It is sometimes hard to understand how W3C is working. I have in the past tried to explain how all pieces fit together on mailing-lists or here on this blog. I see comments on mailing lists and blogs which should not be said, harsh words between people. Be careful about your perceptions, assumptions, they lead you sometimes in fights. This is not right.

W3C is a community platform where people can work on Web technologies with different tools. One of these tools is the W3C Process. Use the tools for working.

Jason Cranford-Teague has written a long blog post about Web Typography. He is calling for feedback on two CSS 3 modules related to fonts.

… tell me what you think are some of the font styles and features missing from the current specification. What do you expect to be able to do with typography on your Web pages that you can not do now? What are you doing now with kludges that you would like to see simpler ways of doing? Keep in mind that we are talking about font properties and how to style the characters. This includes things like bold, italic, and even outline and emboss which effect how each glyph is rendered. It does not include styles that area applied over an entire block of text such as underlining or rotating text. Those are in different modules.

Also, let me know what you think about some of the new additions to the Fonts specification (font-size-adjust, font-stretch, font-effect, and font-smooth) and any problems you have with the current specifications.

Try to be as specific as possible, and provide examples and links if you can. I’m looking forward to seeing what the Web design community comes up with!

Go add your own comment on his blog. I know at least one person who should send his comments. We had often debates about typography, CSS and standards in the French blogosphere. ;)

WCAG 2.0 is going, boldly, where it's never gone before: Today WCAG 2.0 is at "W3C Candidate Recommendation"! Can you feel the Web accessibility world shake? Candidate Recommendation means that we think the technical content is stable and we want developers and designers to start using WCAG 2.0, to test it out in every-day situations. For more about Candidate Recommendation, see How WAI Develops Accessibility Guidelines through the W3C Process.

I hear you asking, "When will it be completed?" We're optimistic that it will indeed be completed in 2008. If implementation goes well and there are no significant new issues, the "Proposed Recommendation" of WCAG 2.0 should be published in the third quarter of 2008, with the final Web standard W3C Recommendation published about two months after that.

What's important now is that we need your help moving WCAG 2.0 to the next stage. In order to advance WCAG 2.0, we need to demonstrate that it can be implemented in different types of Web content, in a variety of human languages, and using a variety of technologies. We're looking for several websites that conform at each level (A, AA, AAA), and at least two independent implementations of every success criterion. (Success criteria and levels are introduced in Overview of WCAG 2.0 Documents.) We welcome WCAG 2.0 implementation experience from a wide range of environments, including e-commerce, government, education, blogs, etc.

Note that there are a few success criteria that are at risk of becoming advisory if we don't get at least two implementations of them. Here is a special appeal for implementations of those at risk success criteria.

To be a part of this stage of WCAG 2.0 implementation experience, check out WCAG 2.0 Candidate Recommendation Implementation Information.

There are a lot of reasons to start implementing WCAG 2.0 now, in addition to the possibility of your website being publicly listed as an implementation; see "What are the benefits of using WCAG 2.0?" in the WCAG 2 FAQ.

Thanks for all the support moving WCAG 2.0 towards completion!