Re: 4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1

Andrew,

> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ is just a pointer to the most recent
version.


Sure, but for some (many?) the "most recent version" is not the one they
would be held accountable to. It's not just "the most recent", it is also a
*different* version. Currently, when you go to https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
and then follow the link to Previous version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/PR-WCAG20-20081103/, users are advised that "This
version is outdated".

[image: image.png]
(screen capture of the current warning message outputted)

We cannot (I assert) say that to a normative modification to 2.0/2.1
because the versions that still include the requirement to meet 4.1.1
cannot be *outdated* due to the knock-on impact I previously noted: the
known list of Policies <https://www.w3.org/WAI/policies/> (above and beyond
508 / EN) potentially impacted, the list of official W3C translations
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/translations/> of either
of those versions of WCAG, as well as noting the likely references in
external policies, print publications, and tooling.

For this reason, I assert that normative changes to 2.0 and 2.1 are
creating NEW Recommendations after the fact. We can *encourage*
organizations to adopt and use the New versions, but because we alone
cannot compel them to do so, we must leave both options available as fully
articulated and VALID Recommendations (even if we know that one version is
"bad") - it's not either / or, its 'both' - simultaneously.

JF

On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 10:13 AM Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:

> Just one point to add, John:
>
>
>
> This particular question is actually at the root of my current concern and
> "CANNOT LIVE WITH" stance; If we "republish" 2.0 / 2.1 with normative
> changes, then it is no longer .../TR/WCAG20 or .../TR/WCAG21, the revisions
> are normatively different (and thus, I propose .../TR/WCAG201 &
> .../TR/WCAG211 respectively).
>
>
>
> As I’m sure you know but will point out for others, the official URI for
> WCAG 2.0 is http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/ and
> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ is just a pointer to the most recent
> version. Similarly for https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/REC-WCAG21-20180605/
> and https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/. So there definitely would be a
> different date version, but the group would need to decide about using the
> existing pointer or not.
>
>
>
> Now, as one example, Section 508 references WCAG using the pointer URI,
> but clarifies that it is the Dec 11 2008 version (see
> https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#702.10.1).
>
>
>
> AWK
>


-- 
*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"