Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2

> should not the  statement, "Extension specifications are expected to
> offer modifications to existing WCAG 2.0 success criteria  ..." be
> worded differently to convey what is intended?


Interesting.

You might have put your finger on it. 

when I read 
> "Extension specifications are expected to offer modifications to existing WCAG 2.0 success criteria  ..." be
> worded differently to convey what is intended?


I read it as   “offer modifications to the existing set of WCAG 2.0 success criteria” meaning that it would extend the set — not edit the SC.


I think that editing the SC or re-using those number will create great confusion.

instead I suggest that new number be used - corresponding to the particular extension

SC XM-1      (for example for the first on in the Mobile extension) 

or  

SC XM-3.1.7   (for mobile — where 3.1.6  is the last SC number in 3.1 series   

If it is an extension of a particular SC it could say 

 SC XM-3.1.7 (which extends  SC 3.1.3)    

gregg

> On Feb 22, 2016, at 8:36 AM, Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com> wrote:
> 
> 1. I understand that "The extension is not changing the SC in WCAG
> 2.0, it is modifying the SC in the context of the extension", then
> should not the  statement, "Extension specifications are expected to
> offer modifications to existing WCAG 2.0 success criteria  ..." be
> worded differently to convey what is intended?
> 2. Yes, "All of the details regarding numbering and association with
> the techniques are details that do need to be figured out", but this
> extension requirements doc should explicitly state that the SCs  in an
> extension will not duplicate  an SC# from the WCAG 2.0.
> Else, an SC in the extension that has  a number identical to a WCAG
> 2.0 SC will surely create confusion  as Greg pointed out in his first
> email especially with regard to documentation for techniques and
> understanding.
> It may not be very problematic for some changes  e.g. SC 1.4.3 in the
> extension say, only changes the ratio from 4.5:1 to 5:1 to make it
> stronger.
> But consider what will happen, if say, SC 3.3.2 in the extension
> begins with "Labels and instructions" instead of "Labels or
> instructions".
> 
> I believe the above should be addressed, then the statement suggested
> by David will absolutely fit in and not create room for any confusion.
> 
> Thanks,
> Sailesh Panchang