WCAG 2.1 instead of WCAG 2.0?

[plehegar]

Did the Group consider using WCAG 2.1 as a reference instead of WCAG 2.0? Since the spec is using text alternative definition and that didn't change between 2.0 and 2.1, I'm wondering why not use the 2.1 REC (released in June 2018).

[palemieux]

The group did not consider referencing WCAG 2.1, which was published as REC after the IMSC 1.1 Candidate Recommendation was published.

I suggest deferring this issue until the next edition/version of IMSC.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Timed Text Working Group just discussed WCAG 2.1 instead of WCAG 2.0? imsc#465, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLUTION: Defer adoption of WCAG 2.1 to a future edition or version of IMSC.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<nigel> Topic: WCAG 2.1 instead of WCAG 2.0? imsc#465
<nigel> github: https://github.com//issues/465
<nigel> Nigel: Is everyone in favour of deferring an update of the WCAG 2.0 reference to 2.1 until
<nigel> .. a later edition or version of IMSC (after the Rec).
<nigel> Thierry: If we want to put it in the Rec that could be do-able, if it is not a normative change.
<nigel> Pierre: It is a normative change.
<nigel> Glenn: We've treated changes to normative references as normative changes in the past.
<nigel> Nigel: Just to confirm, IMSC Appendix D is normative and the reference to WCAG 2.0 is
<nigel> .. normative, so it would be a substantive change.
<nigel> .. Presumably that means we could not do it in Rec even if we wanted to?
<nigel> Thierry: Yes, I think it could be trouble - in that case I would rather delay.
<nigel> Nigel: Any objections to deferring to a later edition or version of IMSC?
<nigel> group: [no objections]
<nigel> Nigel: We have consensus
<nigel> RESOLUTION: Defer adoption of WCAG 2.1 to a future edition or version of IMSC.