W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > September 2013

Re: Help needed: EPUB 3.01 revision referencing a11y metadata spec

From: Gerardo Capiel <gerardoc@benetech.org>
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 23:23:36 +0000
To: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>, "a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com" <a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Charles Myers <charlesm@benetech.org>
CC: George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@bell.net>
Message-ID: <95FEAA5D-1A62-483A-A909-1893DF5F8BB2@benetech.org>

On Sep 8, 2013, at 6:23 PM, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>

> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:14:59AM -0600, George Kerscher wrote:
>> Dear schema.org folks,
>> We need some help here. The proposal at:
>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility
>> Is under consideration by  the International Digital Publishing Forum
>> (IDPF)'s working group for inclusion in the EPUB 3.01 revision that is
>> quickly working towards ISO approval as a Technical Specification.
>> It would be terrific if this could reach a status in the next few weeks to
>> make it into this spec. EPUB 3 references HTML5 and other specifications
>> that are not full W3C recommendations, but a status of accepted public draft
>> or better is necessary for inclusion in the spec.
>> If somehow we could get the accessibility metadata spec to this state, I
>> would appreciate it.
>>> From my POV, having this type of metadata in the package file for each EPUB
>> 3 publication  would go a long, long way in promoting digital publications
>> that are accessible to persons with disabilities.
>> I have copied Gerardo and Matt with this request, who are in a better
>> position to answer technical questions.
> Going all the way back to a very basic question: to which Type(s) are
> these properties expected to be added? My guess is that the intention is
> CreativeWork, with the idea that they would be inherited by Movie, Book,
> MediaObject, etc, but with the exception of the mention of
> SoftwareApplication (which is actually currently a typo as
> "softwareApplication"), currently that information is missing from the
> proposal.

Yes, the target type is CreativeWork and its underlying types. SoftwareApplication is covered, but accessAPI and controlFlexibility are its only properties. 

Thanks for catching that typo.

Received on Sunday, 8 September 2013 23:24:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:30 UTC