Re: 4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1

Hey Alastair,
I do not support a note in WCAG 2.0 / 2.1, but removal from WCAG 2.2. I
would support it if that note was put into WCAG 2.2 instead of removing the
SC.

On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 6:42 PM Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L <
rmontgomery@loc.gov> wrote:

> I prefer Removal but will not object to Adding a Note.
>
>
>
> *From: *Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 12:35 PM
> *To: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: 4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1
> *Resent-From: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 12:34 PM
>
>
>
> *CAUTION:* This email message has been received from an external source.
> Please use caution when opening attachments, or clicking on links.
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I wanted to follow up on the process aspect and ask those who +1ed the CFC
> whether they would object to the alternative below.
>
>
>
> The processes for the options are different:
>
>
>
> *Removal:*
>
> If the SC text is removed, or stated as not required, I’m calling this the
> ‘removal’ approach. I was mistaken on the errata aspect, the removal
> approach would mean using the “*Corrections that do not add new features*
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2021%2FProcess-20211102%2F%23class-3&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7Cfafc10286f4e48caad1a08db20b27ffb%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638139723248368224%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oMLAspY%2BQf%2B7y6VzcAzvfELTLUuhmpr%2F6GKKy1eHs7U%3D&reserved=0>”
> process. It would require a public review (and Patent Review draft),
> probably of 60 days (although that isn’t specified).
>
>
>
> *Adding a note: *
>
> If the SC is left as a requirement but a note is added, this would be an
> editorial change. We’d need director approval, but there’s not requirement
> for public review.
>
>
>
> *Using a dot-version:*
>
> If we made an update and called that WCAG 2.0.1, or 2.1.1, then we’d need
> to go through the whole publishing process from Working Draft to Rec, which
> would take months. Also, we’d need to decide whether the default URI (
> w3.org/TR/WCAG21) went to the new version. In which case, would anyone
> notice the difference in number?
>
>
>
> We had considered the ‘adding a note’ approach during the github threads,
> survey and discussions leading up to the CFC. It had not garnered much
> support which is why the CFC was not on that option.
>
>
>
> If we did take that approach then we’d add a note after the SC text.
> Working from a *previous suggestion*
> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2823/files>, that could be:
>
>
>
> “*NOTE*: Modern web technologies have standardized how user agents parse
> incorrect markup. Any invalid markup is therefore allowed under 4.1.1
> Parsing for technologies such as HTML 5 and CSS 3. This success criterion
> is always satisfied for these technologies.
>
> Issues such as incorrect states or names due to a duplicate ID, or missing
> roles due to inappropriately nested elements are covered by different
> success criteria.”
>
>
>
> For those people who +1ed the removal approach, would you object to this
> approach?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> @alastc / *www.nomensa.com* <http://www.nomensa.com>
>
>
>


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