Re: Anything for a possible 2.2?

The accessible authetification "should" get in as the web authentication specification is now more mature, the main objections should be over. However, will that help with self programming routers and other obscure objections?  Should we discuss this on Thusdays call? All the best Lisa Seeman LinkedIn, Twitter ---- On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 19:37:41 +0300 Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote ---- Hi Lisa (and COGA),   Pre-TPAC, it would be useful to know if there are any potential SCs you’d consider for a WCAG 2.2?   We haven’t determined whether the group will tackle that yet, but part of the decision would be: Is it useful to do a 2.2?   Looking back, there is quite a lot in the ‘defer’ list here: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+label%3ACOGA+label%3Adefer+   I assume most of those have been integrated into the design-requirements doc.   The one that comes to mind for me is the Authentication SC, not requiring passwords. With Webauth standardised now, one of the main arguments has changed. https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/23   Are there any others that were reasonably close, but didn’t make it in?   If not, that would be a factor in putting more effort into Silver rather than a 2.2, but I just wanted to check.   Kind regards,   -Alastair     Kind regards,   -Alastair   --   www.nomensa.com tel: +44 (0)117 929 7333 / 07970 879 653 follow us: @we_are_nomensa or me: @alastc Nomensa Ltd. King William House, 13 Queen Square, Bristol BS1 4NT   Company number: 4214477 | UK VAT registration: GB 771727411