W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > April 2015

Re: ARIA Docs Need Disambiguation [Was: request: move ARIA in HTML to auto publishing]

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 07:34:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+ri+VkLb8h+y_R5K4XqgLNHWKiFzcaCg=jiwxAqOeLsbWVPPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>, "W3C WAI Protocols & Formats" <public-pfwg@w3.org>
On 28 April 2015 at 00:21, janina@rednote.net <janina@rednote.net> wrote:

> I suggest this doesn't cleanly disambiguate between the two because our
> (inherited)  short name for the
> second ("Notes") document is now also the same as the full name of the
> first. I think this will continue to confuse.
> The first document title has:           ARIA in HTML"
> The second document short name URI has: aria-in-html

I am unsure whether the short names can be changed and suggest this would
create more problems than it solves, the main potential point of confusion
is/was the use of the phrase 'ARIA in HTML' in both doc titles, but I think

Notes on Using ARIA in HTML



are sufficiently different, the use of the phrase "Notes on Using" makes it
clear (in my mind) that the doc is informative.

I am not overly keen on bikeshedding names, but if anybody has some
alternative names to offer please do.

> Can we look at these, and perhaps also the other relevant HTML/ARIA
> documents (such as the HTML-AAM) to clear up potential vectors of
> confusion as best we can before another heartbeat?

is there any confusion with other docs?

> I'm aware this would require another round of CfC, but might it not be
> worthwhile?
> Thoughts??



HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2015 06:35:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 28 April 2015 06:35:36 UTC