<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Web accessibility acronym &#8220;starter pack&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/articles/web-accessibility-acronym-starter-pack/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/articles/web-accessibility-acronym-starter-pack/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:53:12 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Donna</title>
		<link>http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/articles/web-accessibility-acronym-starter-pack/#comment-4940</link>
		<dc:creator>Donna</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:45:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/general/web-accessibility-acronym-starter-pack/#comment-4940</guid>
		<description>Heheh... I did debate putting the pronunciation bits in or not. :)

I suspect the "wuh" used by W3C and the "wih" used by me are actually both approximations of a rather non-specific vowel sound for which English doesn't have an actual letter.  If we were able to use the international phonetic alphabet to describe the pronunciation, we could be more specific.

And "way" is what the people who actually work in the WAI call it - before I met any of them face to face, I thought of it as "wy", but they all call it "way".  Difference between American and European influences I guess.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Heheh&#8230; I did debate putting the pronunciation bits in or not. :)</p>
<p>I suspect the &#8220;wuh&#8221; used by W3C and the &#8220;wih&#8221; used by me are actually both approximations of a rather non-specific vowel sound for which English doesn&#8217;t have an actual letter.  If we were able to use the international phonetic alphabet to describe the pronunciation, we could be more specific.</p>
<p>And &#8220;way&#8221; is what the people who actually work in the WAI call it - before I met any of them face to face, I thought of it as &#8220;wy&#8221;, but they all call it &#8220;way&#8221;.  Difference between American and European influences I guess.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JackP</title>
		<link>http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/articles/web-accessibility-acronym-starter-pack/#comment-4817</link>
		<dc:creator>JackP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:39:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/general/web-accessibility-acronym-starter-pack/#comment-4817</guid>
		<description>Surely WCAG is "wuh-cag" and WAI is "why" if you must pronounce them as one word? Or at least that's how I've always pronounced them - and the W3C certainly agree with me on the first point:

WCAG - pronounced "wuh-cag"
http://www.w3.org/2001/Talks/1219-WSAS-tech/slide2-1.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Surely WCAG is &#8220;wuh-cag&#8221; and WAI is &#8220;why&#8221; if you must pronounce them as one word? Or at least that&#8217;s how I&#8217;ve always pronounced them - and the W3C certainly agree with me on the first point:</p>
<p>WCAG - pronounced &#8220;wuh-cag&#8221;<br />
<a href="http://www.w3.org/2001/Talks/1219-WSAS-tech/slide2-1.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.w3.org/2001/Talks/1219-WSAS-tech/slide2-1.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
