# RE: Numbering WCAG 2.1

From: Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 13:20:27 +0000
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com" <kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com>
CC: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2627d032bc6e4452b59d939eddfff4c0@XCH15-08-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
```I don’t want to speak for Kim, but from what I understand of legal numbering and what was discussed rather quickly on previous calls, stressing the word “honor” helps the logic.  For example, just adding a 0 to all existing numbers allows 9 SC to be inserted between any 2, and would have very minimal disruption:

1.3.10 Info and Relationships
--> 1.3.15 New 2.1 Criterion
1.3.20 Meaningful Sequence

That’s just one technique of many.

Steve

From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 4:22 AM
To: kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Numbering WCAG 2.1

Hi Kim,

I’m a bit confused, the logical result of:
> keep the numbers sequential,
> levels together, and
> honor (keep) the WCAG 2.0 numbers.

would be that we cannot add new SCs at A or AA, as either numbers would be out of sequence, or the levels would be.

Assuming we do add new SCs above AAA, we either have to re-order or re-number in some way, am I missing something?

My suggestion (for later) was that we de-emphasise the numbers and then allow them to be out of order, so that the levels are kept together.

Kind regards,

-Alastair

--

www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com/> / @alastc

```
Received on Friday, 29 September 2017 13:21:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:16 UTC