This document:Public document·View comments·Disposition of Comments·
Nearby:Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Other specs in this tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group's Issue tracker
Quick access to LC-2651 LC-2652 LC-2653 LC-2654 LC-2655 LC-2656 LC-2657 LC-2658 LC-2659 LC-2660 LC-2661 LC-2662 LC-2663 LC-2664 LC-2665 LC-2666 LC-2667 LC-2668 LC-2669 LC-2670 LC-2671 LC-2672 LC-2673 LC-2674 LC-2675 LC-2676 LC-2677 LC-2678 LC-2679 LC-2680 LC-2681 LC-2682 LC-2686 LC-2687 LC-2688 LC-2689 LC-2690 LC-2691 LC-2692 LC-2693 LC-2694 LC-2695 LC-2698 LC-2700 LC-2701 LC-2702 LC-2817 LC-2818
Previous: LC-2679 Next: LC-2681
SC 2.4.5 - No advice is given here, and I'n not sure what advice could be given. Individual pages are themselves rarely "locations" in the same sense as web-pages. After all, no-one ever produces a table of contents that lists every page in a document unless (for example) headings are present on every page. For this reason the idea of having "more than one way… to locate a web page" is inapplicable in instances where the _only_ "way" is the physical and/or logical page number. Speaking of which… would this SC be referring (in electronic documents) to "locating" the physical page or the logical page?, if any? I'm guessing it's the physical page, but I just don't know.