Are you sure you want to keep "Sometimes" in this sentence?

Sometimes web pages are created which do not have content added later, so I think the "sometimes" is accurate.

It's an adverb indicating how often. Webster's Dectionary provides these synonyms: "At times; at intervals; not always; now and then;
occasionally." Given that the Web Almanac data cited by the commentor indicates the average web site in 2021 uses over 20 third parties, and 10% of sites use over 90 third party injections, it stretches credulity to stick with "sometimes," imo. If, as I suspect, this can't be managed in current time frames, a more honest adverb might prove far more credible. How about something like "increasingly?"

The main link to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 paragraph 5.4 was left out above. I added it above and put it here:

"Sometimes, Web pages are created that will later have additional content added to them."
Link. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#conformance-partial

Thanks for the context. I don't think it hurts to make this "often" but I also don't see that if really affects the meaning or context of this section either way. I suggest you submit a PR to update any similar minor editorial suggestions which don't intrinsically change the meaning.

We see the same paragraph was carried forward to WCAG 2.1
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#conformance-partial

There are to my knowledge only a vanishingly small number of sites that lack the features listed in the paragraph. And this list is not even complete, skipping over e-commerce catalogs that add products and product features (e.g. sizes).

...a blog, an article that allows users to add comments, or applications supporting user-contributed content.... content aggregated from multiple contributors, or sites that automatically insert content from other sources over time, such as when advertisements are inserted dynamically.

"Often" is better, @mbgower. "In general" would be more accurate.

IMHO it's not a minor suggestion, as it points to the reality of most websites today.

I think "in general" may be stretching it. There are a LOT of stable web pages out there (think of all the documentation and information pages). I like @JaninaSajka suggestion of "increasingly."

Given that the Web Almanac data cited by the commentor indicates the average web site in 2021 uses over 20 third parties, and 10% of sites use over 90 third party injections, it stretches credulity to stick with "sometimes," imo.

There is a big difference between "injections" and things which WCAG would be concerned with.

For example, tracking scripts don't (or shouldn't) change the interface at all. Images delivered by a CDN may be from a 3rd party site, but the 1st party site should be defining the alt-text. A JavaScript library might be included via a 3rd party, but the components built with it are probably the responsibility of the 1st party.

This section is more concerned with things like user-comments, aggregated content, etc. Things which affect the interface and are from a 3rd party.

Thinking about my companies clients (mostly national & a few international level), few have needed (or wanted) to make use of partial conformance.

Some sites which accept user-comments could restrict what formatting/media is available and not need to claim partial conformance. Some may have a contract for the 3rd party that requires accessibility.

Obviously platforms like github, twitter, & other social media companies are different, but if you are looking at a site by site basis, I don't think it's obvious that it is 'most'. It might be, but it's hard to say.

I also don't think an adjective which implies change is suitable here. We don't know if it is increasing, has peaked, or how it might change in future.

Overall I don't think "some" is a problem. If that implies "a minority" to some people then perhaps we could use "many".

Or just avoid the adjective and have something like: "Web pages that will later have additional content added to them may wish to use a 'statement of partial conformance'".

Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) Working Group has reached a formal consensus regarding this issue during its W3C mandated horizontal review of the WCAG 2.2 Candidate Recommendation draft. Our decision accepts the second option above proposed by @alastc. We agree that dropping any adverbial or adjectival characterization is to be preferred.

Reopening until a PR is processed that addresses this.

Also adding the WCAG 2.2 label, as this is a horizontal review comment blocking 2.2 even though it is on 2.0 content.

Closing as #2658 updated this.