Summary

  • On 22 September W3C announced updated authorized French translations of WCAG 2.2 and 2.1. Both dated texts display an authorized-translation heading.
  • Each new page also retains an introductory sentence calling itself a candidate translation. The earlier, authorized 2025 French WCAG 2.2 page used authorized wording at that position.
  • This is a publication-status inconsistency, not proof that W3C withheld authorization or that the underlying accessibility requirements changed.

The contradiction appears before a reader reaches the success criteria. W3C's 22 September announcement calls the French WCAG 2.2 and 2.1 texts updated authorized translations. Open either dated publication and the prominent French heading says the same. A few lines later, however, the self-description says it is a candidate translation. The two labels describe different stages of the W3C translation process, and they now coexist inside documents offered as final authorized versions.

Version precision matters here. W3C's accompanying WAI announcement ties the 2.2 French text to the English Recommendation of 12 December 2024 and the 2.1 text to the English Recommendation of 6 May 2025. Both French pages link to those dated originals, not merely to a moving latest-version address. The 2025 authorized French WCAG 2.2 page, which was based on the older 2023 English Recommendation, called itself an authorized translation in its corresponding introductory paragraph. The 2026 label therefore should not be treated as an invariable disclaimer. It is visible in the updated publications.

W3C's translation policy supplies the institutional distinction. A lead organization prepares a candidate; stakeholders review it in public; W3C then decides whether it can be designated and published as an authorized translation. Access42's September review summaries report approval by 37 of 49 listed stakeholder organizations for each candidate, with 12 nonresponses. That record helps explain the route to designation, but the vote count is not itself the act that grants W3C status. The W3C announcement and publication are stronger evidence that designation occurred.

The mismatch is consequential because the same policy allows authorized translations to be used for official purposes, including by bodies that need a local-language text. It prescribes an authorized-status disclaimer on the finished document. This does not make the French page a sovereign version of WCAG: the policy says the English original remains authoritative in a dispute. Nor does the observed sentence settle how any government, court or auditor will treat a particular citation. No such outcome is established by these pages.

A careful reader can still identify the applicable text: use the dated 22 September French URI, record the linked English Recommendation date, and consult the errata route. What the reader should not have to do is resolve the publication's own status by choosing which of its two adjacent declarations to believe. Correcting the self-description and preserving a visible dated record would close a narrow but avoidable provenance gap. The source record does not say why the candidate wording survived, or whether W3C has scheduled a correction.

Sources