[4b1c6c]: CG Discuss: Remove rule "Iframe elements with identical accessible names have equivalent purpose " about act-rules.github.io HOT 5 OPEN

Not normative, but this PR added "appropriate" to Intent of Understanding 4.1.2.

from act-rules.github.io.

CG decision (April 25th):
use secondary requirement for 4.1.2 (maybe also for 1.3.1?), and point to the Understanding 4.1.2 justifying that the name should be "accurate".

from act-rules.github.io.

@Jym77 So is the decision to have no success criteria nor w3c standards to support the rule, but still keep it?

from act-rules.github.io.

@tombrunet Yes.

Well, not fully, we'll still keep secondary requirements, which show the rule is related to these SC, but acknowledge that we can't guarantee a fail-on-fail relation. Secondary requirements also means that implementation will be considered as consistent no matter whether they fail that SC or not, thus leaving room for tools to be more clever than the rule in detecting cases that actually fail the SC.

from act-rules.github.io.

@Jym77 I don't think that meets the intention of secondary requirements. Secondary requirements are intended to handle situations where a rule is more or less strict than an SC, but is not intended to handle things that may be tangentially related. Two iframes with identical names yet point to different resources have no bearing on the success or failure of 1.3.1 nor 4.1.2.

The problem here is that if the rule passes, you can never assume that you satisfy either SC. And if it fails, it is never an indication that you fail either SC, so you should never flag either of those SCs based on this rule as written.

from act-rules.github.io.