Re: 4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1

Hi Alastair,

> I think Wilco’s suggestion was that you wouldn’t need to update the
conformance model, you just consider it ‘passed’ (assuming you’re using
HTML based content) as “specifications allow these features”.

Conceptually, I understand that. The problem is it is an "assumption"
("...I can consider it 'passed'..."), and not *a normatively
declared exception*.

>  It is an attractive option. I think we’d need a substantial update to
the understanding doc to ensure people understand what we mean.


 This is why I stated *"JF DOES support the "Leave it in, defang it via a
Note, and modify Section 5.2 to address the change in conformance
requirements" - 2 normative changes to both 2.0 and 2.1 (I CANNOT **accept
leaving but changing 4.1.1 while not also changing 5.2 at the same time)".*

It essentially concurs with Wico's reasoning, but my position goes further
in that it also ensures that it is not just an assumption/suggestion
attached to 4.1.1, but is ALSO normatively noted as such in Section 5.2.

*I believe this is an important part of addressing the drive-by abuses that
is, in part, why we are making these changes. If we consider it "passed" we
should be able to say that in the conformance section as well. I fail to
see the downside to being explicit and clear here. *(I also fail to see why
this would be a controversial addition - it reinforces the change to 4.1.1
made elsewhere in the same document.)

Since you are making a normative change to one part of the older
Recommendations (that will need to go to wide review), adding a second
revision clarifying the Conformance status, as a second normative change,
would nonetheless be covered by the same wide review that the first
normative change triggers.

I do not think you can change my mind here: my positions are at this time
fairly entrenched, and I spent a fair amount of time articulating that
previously (and will stop repeating myself). I have provided to you and the
WG in a very lengthy and annotated email my reasons for all of the
positions I CANNOT LIVE WITH, and I have already noted where I can change
my mind (deprecation versus superseded, or rescinded
<https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#rec-rescind>, flexibility on
naming the revised edition(s), etc.)

Respectfully,

JF



On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 10:10 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi John,
>
>
>
> Just on this option:
>
> > "Leave it in, defang it via a Note, and modify Section 5.2 to address
> the change in conformance requirements" - 2 normative changes to both 2.0
> and 2.1”
>
>
>
> I think Wilco’s suggestion was that you wouldn’t need to update the
> conformance model, you just consider it ‘passed’ (assuming you’re using
> HTML based content) as “specifications allow these features”.
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023JanMar/0245.html
>
>
>
> It is an attractive option. I think we’d need a substantial update to the
> understanding doc to ensure people understand what we mean (as many people
> include the “content model” rather than see it as “wellformed-ness”).
>
>
>
> Personally, I think the removal approach on WCAG 2.2 is still the best way
> to convey “you don’t need to test this”, but given the constraints for
> earlier version, would anyone object to this approach for 2.0 / 2.1? (And
> if so, why?)
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>


-- 
*John Foliot* |
Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility |
W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor |

"I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"