W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: Discussion on SC numbering

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 11:30:41 -0600
Message-ID: <CAOavpvfe+6TewQyMeqOfeSW2uFdgo80yb=UFPPqA_QXBw6=XWg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi Alastair,

> Laura wrote:
>
>> Move IDs to the end of each SC
>
> Thanks, I also have difficulty remembering the numbers. Well, past 1.1.1
> anyway!  The 20/21 thing stumped me for a second, but I can see that having
> the dot separator (2.1) would make it too ‘dotty’.

Yes. Too many dots is confusing.

> Having “ID: 1.4.4(20)” and “ID: 1.4(21)4” implies the 2.1 is replacing the
> previous, but in which case why have both?

Good point. I was thinking it would be forward compatible to 2.2 if
that was ever needed. But I think you solved it with your next
suggestion.

> Perhaps it could be something like “ID 2.0: 1.4.7”, “ID 2.1: 1.4.8“.

Yes. That could work.

> Overall though, I do like the idea of de-emphasising the IDs, it makes the
> ordering more flexible. It becomes an enhancement for experts, toolmakers
> and legal use, without confusing the largest group who (should) use the
> guidelines.

Agreed. De-emphasising the numbers was my main point.

Kindest Regards,
Laura

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2016 17:31:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:07 UTC