Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1

------ Original Message ------
From: "Eric Eggert" <ee@w3.org>
[...]
>>>David wrote:
>>>
>>>>Any new Success Criteria that have the x.x.x schema under these 
>>>>Guidelines would have to go at the end. So a new AA SC would end up 
>>>>after an existing AAA in the number Guideline
>>>>
>>>Serious question: does anyone see this as a problem?
>>>
>>[Chair hat off]
>>
>>Yes, I do. [...]
>>
>The question is what happens when a AA criterion is “promoted” to be an 
>A criterion, for example:
>
What if any given SC was promoted, it is renumerated at the end? Or 
Added on (with a alphabetic prefix/suffix)? This would be simpler but 
have the disadvantage of no longer being 'recognisable' as related to 
its previous position. This brings the question of to what degree we 
have to maintain previous relationships/mappings of SCs to their 'former 
selves'?

It may be a brave new world (whether we like it or not).

>
>x.1.1 – A
>x.1.2 – A
>x.1.3 – AA
>x.1.4 – AA
>x.1.5 – AA
>x.1.6 – AAA
>
>[...]
>
>x.1.1 – A
>x.1.2 – A
>x.1.3 – AA
>x.1.4 – A
>x.1.5 – AA
>x.1.6 – AAA
>
>I find everything but the latter very confusing, at least for the 2.x 
>WCAG branch, we’re of course free to adopt a different counting 
>technique for 3.0.
>
It sure is. I like (or think it is realistic to be more accurate) to 
try:

x.1.1 – A
x.1.1.x – A
x.1.2 – A
x.1.2.x – A
x.1.3 – AA
x.1.3.x – AA
Where x.1.1.x – A, x.1.2.x – A, x.1.3.x – AA are new SCs.

>
>>OOTTMH - I'd almost consider using the letter/prefix or suffix 
>>suggestion almost as a preferred 'namespaced' type solution that would 
>>more easily call out what was new, within the SC schema and may not 
>>interfere with current automated evaluation methods too much.
>>
>I don’t know how the problem would be addressed by a prefix/suffix…
>
>Reformulating
>
>[...]
>
>This makes somewhat sense and would be consistent, but it would also 
>make the numbering much more complicated.
>
>>Could be wrong (I could be right) - happy to hear either way.
>>
>+1 – I think it is a very complicated issue (to do right and somewhat 
>“user”friendly).
>
>Eric
>

I think you just earned a place on the 'SC team' any interest in working 
with John/David etc? Your considered input would be very helpful!

Thanks

Josh