So, we have Links with identical accessible names and same context serve equivalent purpose / Links with identical accessible names have equivalent purpose which have been here for historical reasons as a way to reduce the Applicability (and questions asked) of our 2.4.4/2.4.9 rules.
Since then, we've written Link in context is descriptive / Link is descriptive which should cover them fully, i.e. if a group of links fail "Links with identical name have equivalent purpose", then at least one of the links should also fail "Link is descriptive" (or we do not have a 2.4.9 failure in the first place, which is bad).
To me, this feels similar to the situation we had with Image filename is accessible name for image which was written as a way to focus 1.1.1 check to some known bad case, but got deprecated once we wrote the better Image accessible name is descriptive.
So, I think we should deprecate both "Links with identical name" rules, as they are now superseded by the the "Link is descriptive" rules.
So, we have Links with identical accessible names and same context serve equivalent purpose / Links with identical accessible names have equivalent purpose which have been here for historical reasons as a way to reduce the Applicability (and questions asked) of our 2.4.4/2.4.9 rules.
Since then, we've written Link in context is descriptive / Link is descriptive which should cover them fully, i.e. if a group of links fail "Links with identical name have equivalent purpose", then at least one of the links should also fail "Link is descriptive" (or we do not have a 2.4.9 failure in the first place, which is bad).
To me, this feels similar to the situation we had with Image filename is accessible name for image which was written as a way to focus 1.1.1 check to some known bad case, but got deprecated once we wrote the better Image accessible name is descriptive.
So, I think we should deprecate both "Links with identical name" rules, as they are now superseded by the the "Link is descriptive" rules.