The accessibility specification is currently silent about when publications need to be retested.
Although each release of a publication is typically a point-in-time event, we should consider some level of recommendation for re-releasing content (whether it has previously been checked and not).
The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2021-03-25
List of resolutions:
Resolution No. 2: add non-normative text in ePUB Accessibility suggesting rechecking the publications for major changes that could effect
View the transcript
### 2. Rechecking accessibility
_See github issue [#1470](https://github.com/w3c/epub-specs/issues/1470)._
**Matt Garrish:** this came up in ISO. How long does the certification of content being accessible last for? e.g. For website the certification might degrade over 5 years, after which the accessibility certification might not be trustworthy anymore
… less of a concern for packaged up epubs that shouldn't change
… but what about reissues of epubs?
… should we have guidance for that? A specific recommendation? Leave it to authors?
**Avneesh Singh:** it will depend on publisher processes
**Gregorio Pellegrino:** we check all the books published by our members
… we hash each epub
… so when we get a new file that matches an existing isbn, we match the hashes
… if hash mismatch, we recheck a11y
**Charles LaPierre:** for GCA, once we certify a publisher, they can stamp all books coming off that workflow as certified
… but the publisher must get recertified each year
… and that recertification process will bring them up to the state of the art
… if they then reissue epub after that point, then they can update the certification as well
… i.e. our solution is to keep the publisher up to date
**Avneesh Singh:** if the user gets an old ebook, say 3 years old, how can the user ensure that the latest revision is accessible?
**Charles LaPierre:** the user would just refer to the a11y metadata in the reprint. And it would be up to the publisher to use the latest standards in the publishing pipeline
… between recertifications, we leave this up to the publisher
**Ben Schroeter:** if its a new edition, i would consider that a new publication
… that would go through whatever processes the publisher uses for normal a11y check
… in terms of GCA certified publishers
… i can see a case where a title goes through the certified workflow, but on republication changes are made (e.g. inserted image) that doesn't conform with a11y standards
… this is a potential gap
… and also, we may be moving towards a world in which there are more and more frequent updates to epubs
**Wendy Reid:** any guidelines we put in place will have to apply across the board - from GCA certified to micro indie publisher
… for a lot of repubs, the content of the book is not really changing (maybe just update to copyright page or something)
… so we have to be careful of mandating recheck on "new hash" or every new revision
… maybe qualify by saying "if adding new content" or "if substantially changing content"
> *Charles LaPierre:* +1 Wendy
**Wendy Reid:** but have exclusion for if you are just fixing typos or updating marketing material
… also, re. comparison between epub and website, epubs don't replicate at the same rate
**Matt Garrish:** i think it has to be an informative section
… what wendyreid has described is similar to the qualifications that we once had on release identifier
… this is probably as far as we can go
… don't want to get mired in questions of what it means to recheck
… maybe just say that standards change, and that when you do something to your epub you should just make sure that you are on top of the latest standards
**Gregorio Pellegrino:** one of our ideas was to add date of certification
… e.g. in accessibility summary
**Charles LaPierre:** the idea of a certification date is something we could definitely add
… that way publishers could change the certification date, or not, when they make other changes to the epub
… i'm wondering about if the publisher modifies something 3 years from now, and URLs for conformsTo have changed
… do they change the URLs to new URLs, or leave them as what they were at the point of initial certification?
**Matt Garrish:** hard question to answer, because we're not negating the old standards
… maybe the date based system is a good way to go
… hard to make normative statements because of all the possibilities
… maybe we could rely on legislation to set the rules, and just offer some guidance
**Avneesh Singh:** we can start by providing non-normative text like mgarrish suggested
… let this mature for some number of years, and then revisit it
**George Kerscher:** when a publisher is doing update or new edition, if they have switched to a11y 1.1, wouldn't they just start using the correct metadata URLs at that point?
… publishers are not all going to go from a11y 1.0 to 1.1 all at once
> **Proposed resolution: add non-normative text in ePUB Accessibility suggesting rechecking the publications for major changes that could effect accessibility** *(Avneesh Singh)*
> *Wendy Reid:* +1
> *Charles LaPierre:* +1
> *Gregorio Pellegrino:* +1
> *Matthew Chan:* +1
> *Bill Kasdorf:* +1
> *Will:* +
> *Matt Garrish:* +1
> *Ben Schroeter:* +1
> *Will:* +1
> ***Resolution #2: add non-normative text in ePUB Accessibility suggesting rechecking the publications for major changes that could effect***
**Avneesh Singh:** we'll work on the specific guidance language over on the issue tracker
> *George Kerscher:* +1
The accessibility specification is currently silent about when publications need to be retested.
Although each release of a publication is typically a point-in-time event, we should consider some level of recommendation for re-releasing content (whether it has previously been checked and not).