Re: Suggested shortnames for Silver

+1 to Michael's proposal.  We certainly should drop the caps.  I don't 
have a strong opinion about the ".", although I personally find it 
easier to remember without the dot, but that is just a personal preference.

jeanne

On 11/4/2020 10:03 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> Thank you for bringing this up Michael.
>
> We had a similar question from Kaz related to the WoT documents 20 days
> ago and I took an action to provide clarifications.
>
> Here is what I wrote then:
>   https://github.com/w3c/manual-of-style/issues/11
>
> In other words, the pattern followed by WCAG so far matches the patterns
> that are in other groups.
>
> Can you comment on that issue?
>
> So ar, I haven't encounter strong opinions on this issue but we didn't
> circulate it widely either.
>
> Philippe
>
> On 11/4/2020 7:58 AM, Michael Cooper wrote:
>> Up to now, we've been kind of assuming Silver (WCAG 3) will have a
>> shortname patterned like WCAG 2. (The shortname is the part that appears
>> after TR in the URI, sometimes collated with a date, such as
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/.) A couple things aren't great about this
>> pattern:
>>
>>    * Most W3C documents use lowercased shortnames, it's unusual to have
>>      an uppercase one.
>>    * The lack of punctuation makes it ambiguous whether the version is
>>      3.0 or 30.
>>
>> I would like to address this by making the shortname for the Silver
>> guidelines "wcag-3.0". Thus, the TR publication URI would be
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/.
>>
>> The Requirements document should follow a similar pattern, though in
>> that case I'd like to drop the "dot" from it so it applies to all
>> editions of WCAG 3. Therefore the shortname would be
>> "wcag-3-requirements" and the TR publication URI
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3-requirements/.
>>
>> What are your thoughts? I expect Judy and Shawn Henry not to support
>> this initially, as they would probably prioritize consistency with the
>> past. But I think a once-per-decade major update is the best opportunity
>> to break away from that in favour of something more clear. I think the
>> increased clarity outweighs consistency with the past. (N.B., we would
>> probably set up redirects so if someone tries to go to
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG30/, they would be redirected rather than find
>> it a broken link, so we're not breaking things for people used to the
>> old pattern.)
>>
>> Michael
>>

Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2020 19:29:48 UTC