w3c / accname

Accessible Name and Description Computation

https://w3c.github.io/accname/

61 stars 23 forks source link

Use Consistent Numbering scheme in Computation Steps #185

Closed Epigenetic closed 1 year ago

Epigenetic commented 1 year ago

The numbering schemes for the sub-steps of 4.3.2 are insistent from step to step. In step 2.B uses bullets then roman numerals and then letters, while steps 2.A, 2.C, and 2.D use bullets throughout. Step 2.F uses roman numerals and then bullets or letters. This makes the algorithm more difficult to parse than it needs to be, and given that all the steps should be executed in sequence, they should probably all be ordered lists.

jnurthen commented 1 year ago

139 seems like it would resolve this

cookiecrook commented 1 year ago

@Epigenetic please review the diff in #139. While it does not address your comment specifically, it does change all cross-references to use named identifiers, in both visible prose and as permalinks. If that resolves the root of your issue, please close as a duplicate. Otherwise, please comment and keep open.

Epigenetic commented 1 year ago

I think this is related to #139, but not resolved. This is more related to one of your comments (https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues/139#issuecomment-902997266) where you said: "It's not always clear why sub-sections are ordered versus unordered. Should all of them be ordered for consistency? The style sheet could be updated to ensure a consistent numbering system for each level." This issue is requesting we make this consistent, which does not seem to be in your PR.

cookiecrook commented 1 year ago

Editor’s draft now has the named steps merged, so I think we could probably do one of several things:

change all the UL lists to OL, so everything would be #.x.#
remove all the generated list styles and explicitly order them #.#.# so “2C Embedded Control” would become “2.3 Embedded Control”
Remove the generated list styles and leave with named steps only. (Least appealing to me for a number of reasons.)

Thoughts?

Epigenetic commented 1 year ago

Messing around with the markup it seems like switching to OL gets us most of the way there. The only place this has issues is step 2B.ii which has substeps that nest deeper than the style sheet currently accounts for.

cookiecrook commented 1 year ago

If that ends up being problematic, it's easily solvable.