Luc Pardon lucp at
Fri Jan 6 22:08:14 CET 2017

On 06-01-17 20:28, David Starner wrote:
> In the US, I'd argue that any requirement that non-commercial speech be
> tagged is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

   The requirement for accessibility is not about preventing you from
saying what you want, it's about preventing you to place restrictions on
who you want to hear what you're saying.

   A prohibition to put a "no xxx allowed inside" on your pub window is
not about preventing you from selling beer. Refusing to tag for
accesibility is the equivalent of putting a "no visually impaired
readers allowed" sign on your text.

> I don't see acknowledging that texts need tagging at the top level as brushing aside the idea of tagging for accessibility.

  No, but refusing to acknowledge that texts with multiple languages in
them do need fine-grained tagging certainly is.


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list