CFC: Proposed editorial errata for WCAG 2.1

AGWG’ers,

This was sent out intending to be a CFC and was based on unanimous support from the group leading up to this message. People were expecting a CFC since we decided to do one when we were on the call, and multiple responded favorably. Given the unanimous support we will treat this as the CFC that people believed it was.

As we have received only positive feedback leading up to this CfC and no responses indicating that group members could not live this this decision, this CfC is agreed on as a consensus opinion of the working group and the 7 items indicatred below will be added to the Errata list.

This decision will be recorded at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Decisions<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FGL%2Fwiki%2FDecisions&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1ab6006ec2be48e88f9008d4a210961e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636311639507586899&sdata=IafGoKjeQf7zBqxVj8m380hh8%2BWgU1VfPa2tZjq0Bx8%3D&reserved=0>

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Head of Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk



From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:48
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Proposed editorial errata for WCAG 2.1
Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:48


Based on recent changes in the editors' draft, I would add the following to the editorial errata in https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/errata/ if approved by the WG:

  *   In the Introduction<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#intro>, several (but not all) references to "WCAG 2.0" should be "WCAG 2.1".
  *   In the 0.5.2 Numbering in WCAG 2.1<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#numbering-in-wcag-2-1>, the words "critera" and "ccriteria" should be "criteria".
  *   In Success Criterion 1.4.10 Reflow<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#reflow>, the first note had a supernumary "Note" indicator which should be removed.
  *   In 5.3.1 Required Components of a Conformance Claim<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#conformance-required> the editorial note "In WCAG 2.0 this was a dated URI, which may need to be adjusted when this becomes a Rec." should be removed.
  *   In the definition for keyboard interface<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-keyboard-interface>, the second (of three) note should be an example of the first note, leaving only two actual notes.
  *   In the definition for technology<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-technologies>, the third note should instead be an example.
  *   In 7. Input Purposes for User Interface Components<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#input-purposes>, the word "county" should be "country".

A diff of the changes between the Rec version and current editors' draft, showing these changes, can be seen at https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Flabs.w3.org%2Fspec-generator%2F%3Ftype%3Drespec%26url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag%2F21e2c0578b7512b051baea0b24c924e324fb23d4%2Fguidelines%2Findex.html&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Flabs.w3.org%2Fspec-generator%2F%3Ftype%3Drespec%26url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag%2Fd4dcc48d176aa33db1c6bee66e0e0188c5acb114%2Fguidelines%2Findex.html.

Michael