Should "Conformance to WCAG 2.2" section mention potential need to test 4.1.1 for backward compatibility?

[salzman]

In the 20 July 2023 Proposed Recommendation for WCAG 2.2, the Comparison with WCAG 2.1 says, in part:

WCAG 2.2 builds on and is backwards compatible with WCAG 2.1, meaning web pages that conform to WCAG 2.2 are at least as accessible as pages that conform to WCAG 2.1. Requirements have been added that build on 2.1 and 2.0. WCAG 2.2 has removed one success criterion, 4.1.1 Parsing. Authors that are required by policy to conform with WCAG 2.0 or 2.1 will be able to update content to WCAG 2.2, but may need to continue to test and report 4.1.1. Authors following more than one version of the guidelines should be aware of the following additions...

while the Conformance to WCAG 2.2 section says:

WCAG 2.2 uses the same conformance model as WCAG 2.0. It is intended that sites that conform to WCAG 2.2 also conform to WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.1, which means they meet the requirements of any policies that reference WCAG 2.0 or WCAG 2.1, while also better meeting the needs of users on the current Web.

The Conformance section confirms the intention of backward compatibility for content that conforms to WCAG 2.2 but doesn't address the implications of cases in which content would fail 4.1.1. As noted in the Comparison with WCAG 2.1 section, this could be important to people who are required by law or policy to test and report against WCAG 2.0 or 2.1.

Is it worth repeating, in the Conformance section, the potential need to test and report on 4.1.1? Would formatting that information as a "Note" be helpful in making it possible to link to it from the Conformance section and in further highlighting the possible need for some people to continue testing and reporting on 4.1.1? Or is it sufficiently clear that that point is made in the Comparison with WCAG 2.1 section?

I've reviewed #770 and I'm aware of the intent to add notes to WCAG 2.1 and 2.0.

[alastc]

The Conformance section confirms the intention of backward compatibility for content that conforms to WCAG 2.2 but doesn't address the implications of cases in which content would fail 4.1.1.

Since this issue was opened, the note has been added to WCAG 2.1, and errata / understanding update added to WCAG 2.0.

The note says that: "This criterion should be considered as always satisfied for any content using HTML or XML." Therefore it is (at least for HTML/XML) backwards compatible.

I don't think we need to repeat that again, and at this stage it would need to be done as an errata.

[salzman]

The note is very clear and I agree that this resolves the question I raised. Thanks.