RE: SC 4.1.1 and WCAG 2.0

Based on Chaals feedback, that the errata have no official standing for 2.0 then it would seem that WCAG 2.2 is no longer backwards compatible?  This is something that I don't think was clearly communicated when we discussed this previously in the working group meetings.

Regulators and the industry need clear, specific, and consistent guidance on treatment of this as without it people will be held to different standards which causes confusion.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Chaals Nevile <charles.nevile@consensys.net> 
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 11:26 AM
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>; Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com>; Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: SC 4.1.1 and WCAG 2.0

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


Alistair wrote

"Where we re-publish a spec (like 2.1 recently) the errata will then appear on the face of the spec, but technically they apply even when that isn’t the case."

I don't think that's quite true.

The W3C Recommendation is the published document. Republishing updates that to incorporate errata. Until then, the errata are a working group note saying what they got wrong. Or perhaps just what some people think is wrong - there's no specific requirement on errata because they have no official standing.

Publishing updates to Recommendations for errata isn't typically a massive amount of work, although it isn't done that often.

cheers

Chaals

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 00:32:37 (+02:00), Alastair Campbell wrote:

> Hi Patrick,
>
> Mary-Jo is obviously best placed to talk about the ACRs, on the spec side:
>
> > Was it because we couldn't spin up an update/republication of 2.0.
>
> Essentially yes, it is theoretically possible to update but it would involve a huge amount of work.
>
>
> > If so, does the mention in the errata supersede the main spec text
>
> Yes, in effect you have to imagine the errata are in place in the main spec.
>
> Where we re-publish a spec (like 2.1 recently) the errata will then appear on the face of the spec, but technically they apply even when that isn’t the case.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -Alastair
>
> --
>
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com/>
>
>
>
>

--
Charles 'Chaals' Nevile
Lead Standards Architect, ConsenSys Inc

Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2023 17:52:49 UTC