Re: SC 4.1.1 and WCAG 2.0

Hi Charles,

> 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.

This doesn’t seem to be explicitly covered in the process (that I can find), but W3M agreed that these changes to WCAG 2.0 & 2.1 were class 2 (editorial changes). So, there would be no further process outside the group that would approve the errata before a re-publication.

If they would be included in any republication automatically, surely that has some standing?


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

Unfortunately, that isn’t the case for WCAG 2.0. It’s an old document which would need a lot of updating, and extricating from later changes that would probably be automatically incorporated.

Overall, I think the existence of the errata, the updates to 2.1 and removal from 2.2 make the group’s thoughts on the topic clear.

Kind regards,

-Alastair

--

@alastc / www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com/>