Re: Finding agreement on common purpose

> So you would call the last name “family-name”, the credit card number
“cc-number”?

No, I'm saying that the magical mapping documents will map it.

> Even if it is a standard name for each purpose rather than the token, it
would mean you can’t use “Your name” as the label for a field, you’d have
to use “Name”, even if there were three different fields asking for
different people.

No, I'm saying that the magical mapping documents will map it.


Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> *> *> it would limit the terms that people could use in labels, which was
> not acceptable.
>
>
>
> > No, it would cause them to have to add metadata to provide that proper
> "purpose" term.
>
>
>
> So you would call the last name “family-name”, the credit card number
> “cc-number”?
>
>
>
> If you mix tokens and labels you really make it difficult to make
> understandable labels.
>
>
>
> Even if it is a standard name for each purpose rather than the token, it
> would mean you can’t use “Your name” as the label for a field, you’d have
> to use “Name”, even if there were three different fields asking for
> different people.
>
>
>
> Once we started going through the items, it wasn’t practical to simply use
> those as the AccName.
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>