Re: ISSUE-636 ACTION-1398 Provide spec. text for aria-roledescription

On Apr 3, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> On 2014-04-03 4:54 PM, James Craig wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 2014, at 1:47 PM, Joseph Scheuhammer<clown@alum.mit.edu>  wrote:
>> 
>>> >On 2014-04-03 4:25 PM, James Craig wrote:
>>>> >>In other words, whatever we decide to this "localized role description" or "localized control type," we should avoid using the term localized (or the British "localised") in the name.
>>> >l7d.
>>> >
>>> >Much like a11y, i18n, and l10n.
>> Is this a late April Fool or are you seriously suggesting @aria-l7drolename?
>> 
> 
> Neither, although I wish it was a April Fool joke.
> 
> I thought the attribute was either aria-roledescription or aria-roledesc.  (BTW, where did "roleNAME" come from?  My guess: typing too fast :-) ).

I'm still confused. Are you seriously proposing @aria-l7droledesc or @aria-l7droledescription?

> The suggested spec text includes (my emphasis) " ...Provides a human readable, *localized* string name for the role of the element."  I'm not entirely sure what W3C English spelling policy is -- American only, Commonwealth only, or a mixture.  

I think it's fine to have the term used in prose with either spelling… Editor's choice if the W3C style guide does not specify. 

> To avoid that issue, use l7d.  Then again, maybe the official policy is that kind of acronym is not allowed either.

In spec prose, either spelling is preferable to the abbreviation for the sake of clarity. 

In an attribute name or value token, my opinion is that neither spelling nor the abbreviation is acceptable due to web author confusion with spelling or clarity of meaning.

Received on Thursday, 3 April 2014 21:52:00 UTC