W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > December 2014

Re: Non-unique ID on its own not a failure of 1.3.1 ( LC-2985)

From: <jason@accessibleculture.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 07:41:51 +1300
Cc: akirkpat@adobe.com
Message-Id: <898E0D98-3C5B-4FCB-9D86-B3BEE1A31919@accessibleculture.org>
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
I agree with the proposed solution.

Thanks.


Jason Kiss
jason@accessibleculture.org
http://www.accessibleculture.org




> On 17/12/2014, at 3:40 pm, akirkpat@adobe.com wrote:
> 
> Dear Jason Kiss ,
> 
> The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group has reviewed the
> comments you sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Techniques
> for WCAG 2.0 published on 11 Sep 2014. Thank you for having taken the time
> to review the document and to send us comments!
> 
> The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.
> 
> Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
> public-comments-wcag20@w3.org if you agree with it or not before
> 12/24/2014. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a
> specific solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If
> such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to
> raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during
> the transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation
> Track.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> For the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group,
> Michael Cooper
> W3C Staff Contact
> 
> 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/E1XMThS-0008Te-Eu@stuart.w3.org
> 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140911/
> 
> 
> =====
> 
> Your comment on :
>> While it is true that non-unique ID value is a failure of SC 4.1.1, and
>> may very well introduce a failure of SC 1.3.1 where that ID value is
>> referenced by another element in order to establish a relationship, it's
>> not clear why two elements that have identical ID values but that
>> otherwise aren't referenced by additional elements or in any one-to-one
>> relationship.
>> 
>> Proposed Change:
>> Under Failure Example 1, change "An id attribute value that is not
>> unique" to something like "An id attribute value that is not unique and
>> that is referenced by another element to establish a relationship."
>> 
>> Under Procedure, change "1. Check for id and accesskey values which are
>> not unique within the document." into two steps: "1. Check for id
>> attribue values that are not unique within the document and that are
>> referenced by other elements. 2. Check for accesskey values that are not
>> unique within the document."
> 
> 
> Working Group Resolution (LC-2985):
> The failure in question was problematic in the ways you describe and
> redundant to other failures in others.  As a result the WG decided to
> remove F17 entirely.
> 
> Failures resulting from missing relationships between specific elements as
> a result of id attribute value issues are covered in other techniques.
> 
> ----
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2014 18:42:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:18 UTC