Re: CFC - 4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1

> On Mar 8, 2023, at 10:25 AM, Chaals Nevile <charles.nevile@consensys.net> wrote:
> 
> This isn't really a new argument. It is about procedure and W3C process, not the technical merits (which I don't think are in much dispute).
> 
> I'm likely to object, including as an AC rep making a formal objection to substantively changing a previously published versioned recommendation.
> 
> Wilco's reasoning, that doing so makes WCAG 2.2 compatible with WCAG 2.0/2.1 fails to convince me. What it does do is mean that earlier claims of non-conformance to WCAG 2.0 or 2.1 are no longer valid.

Not sure that I follow this.  In the past - content would fail to conform and for a good reason.

TODAY (if the change were NOT made)  Content would fail to conform - but there would be no reason to conform.  It would in effect be a false positive test for accessibility.  

The change eliminates the false positive.

If the purpose of the guidelines was to catch people not conforming — then we should leave it as it is.   If the goal is to increase accessibility - then we should change it so that people stop wasting time fixing something that is not broken because of a false positive indicator for accessibility.    
(Why is it false positive?  Because the problem this provision was intended to highlight no longer exists.  ) 


> 
> It also means that any organisation who are using WCAG 2.0/2.1 now, for whatever reason, need to understand that the promise underpinning a W3C Recommendation is being broken. That seems a far more serious issue than removing he promise that WCAG 2.2 will be backwards compatible, and one that affects every W3C Recommendation and so most W3C Working Groups.
> 
> I am unlikely to decide I "can live with" this. If you want an HTML-style specification that changes when you feel like it, then make one, instead of a W3C Recommendation.
> 
> cheers
> 
> Chaals
> 
> On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 18:58:40 (+01:00), Alastair Campbell wrote:
> 
> Call For Consensus — ends Friday Wed 15th at midday Boston time.
>  
> The group has discussed what to do with 4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 & 2.1 now that it has been removed from WCAG 2.2.
>  
> From the discussion: 
> https://www.w3.org/2023/03/07-ag-minutes#item10
>  
> Following the same approach as WCAG 2.2 was the preferred approach, where the SC text would be removed and replaced with a note that says why it has been removed.
>  
> The specific changes are detailed in these two pull requests:
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3093 
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3094
>  
> Survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq23 
>  
> 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 live with” this decision, please let the group know before the CfC deadline.
>  
> Assuming the group agrees to this change, there is likely to be a public review before we can re-publish WCAG 2.0 & 2.1. 
> https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#last-call-review
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> -Alastair
>  
> -- 
>  
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com <http://www.nomensa.com/>
> -- 
> Charles 'Chaals' Nevile
> Lead Standards Architect, ConsenSys Inc