WCAG 2.2 Errata: wrong reference to understanding URL (WCAG21 instead o WCAG22)

[rscano]

Inside WCAG 2.2 REC there are other wcag 2.1 understanding references:

Accessibility supported definition

note 1: <a href="https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/conformance#support-level">Level of Assistive Technology Support Needed for "Accessibility Support"</a>

note 5: <p>.... (See <a href="https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/conformance#documented-lists">Understanding Accessibility-Supported Web Technology Uses</a>.) </p>

Conforming alternate version (last paragraph) <p>See <a href="https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/conformance#conforming-alt-versions">Understanding Conforming Alternate Versions</a></p>

Text alternative definition (note already in #3486 ) <p >Refer to <a href="https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/conformance#text-alternatives">Understanding Text Alternatives</a> for more information.</p>

[bruce-usab]

Mentioned on 1/19 call, per @alastc this needs input from @iadawn.

[bruce-usab]

Kevin White clarified that informative documents are typically published the first Thursday of the month, and that some of these sort of syntactical bug fixes are frequently corrected as part of that cycle. Contributors are indeed asked to use relative, not absolute, @iadawn my apologies, I do not have clarity on a couple details:

• Would it be helpful to have a volunteer draft a PR for this particular set that @rscano lists?
• If yes, please give a couple of examples of the correct link references.

[fstrr]

Take a look at this PR from October 2023 where I've gone through and edited a lot of absolute links to make them relative. It's been there long enough that it's now got some merge conflicts that I think @alastc is trying to untangle.