Re: [EXT] CFC - 4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1

It’s been on my list to respond to this CFC. Honestly, there’s so many emails and so much discussion via email that I’m fuzzy on the status. I appreciate the complexity of “removing” 4.1.1 Parsing and the impact on regulations that refer to the spec version(s). As we consider the viability of regulating guidelines in our standards work that impact needs to be factored into the decision.

Will there be a reworking of the proposal that incorporates the input provided?

Thank you,
Jen

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 1:00 PM
To: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: [EXT] CFC - 4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1
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>