On 20/09/2017 9:10 AM, David MacDonald wrote: > If we do that I think should start referring to the numbers as ID#s. > Its a change in layout because WCAG 2 used the numbers as "Outline" > mode to order them. The new layout would be changing that "ID" mode as > unique identifiers but not the common way of referring to them by lay > people. I'm OK with that change but I think we should articulate it. We should not refer to numbers as IDs. Numbers are a terribly brittle way to ID something, and we have much better IDs already in the spec. In WCAG 2.0 the ID for SC 1.1.1 is "text-equiv-all"; in WCAG 2.1 we base the ID on the SC title so it's "non-text-content". In both cases there is a lot of infrastructure built around those IDs, and no infrastructure built around the numbers. I know I'm going to lose the debate on numbers, where my position is that they are meaningless and we should number things as appropriate to *this* spec, but we should not attempt to solve concerns with numbers by declaring them as IDs when they are not and we already have better, more stable IDs. Michael
Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2017 13:41:23 UTC