Re: CFC - Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation

-0

I'm hesitant about where we are with Focus Appearance and Parsing, and
would have much preferred we spend some additional time on it to get it
right. It's a bigger gamble than I'm happy with, but I can't see what
benefit would come from objecting.

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 2:14 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> Call for Consensus – ends Wednesday January 18th at 5pm Boston time.
>
>
>
> The Working Group has approved CFCs for updated normative content in WCAG
> 2.2 and it is ready to re-start the Candidate Recommendation stage.
>
>
>
> Recent changes came from these CFCs:
>
> Removing 4.1.1:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023JanMar/0010.html
>
> Target size:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023JanMar/0047.html
>
> And other miscellaneous changes:
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2022OctDec/0131.html
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023JanMar/0014.html
>
>
>
> You can see a diff of the current draft compared to the previous CR
> version here:
>
>
> https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG22%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fwcag%2Fguidelines%2F22%2F
>
>
>
> Note that some changes are simply because the editors draft does not
> include CR content. Primarily that is in the introduction, but it is also
> missing the “at risk” markers. Those will still be included in the CR
> version.
>
>
>
> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not
> been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not
> being able to tolerate” this decision, please let the group know before the
> CfC deadline.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
*Wilco Fiers*
Axe-core & Axe-linter product owner - WCAG 3 Project Manager - Facilitator
ACT Task Force