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

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

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 18:23:21 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFqjgXyr_9CtuGWCHADoMzvzg7idDjmZhh+opyuZkvdjrA@mail.gmail.com>
To: George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>, Ramanathan Guha <guha@google.com>, danbri <danbri@google.com>
Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Gerardo Capiel <gerardoc@benetech.org>, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@bell.net>
+Cc: Guha

On 31 August 2013 18:14, George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com> 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.

Hi George & co,

Well this mail has certainly kicked off some discussion :) Very glad
to see all the energy people have put into this. it would be great to
have schema.org Accessibility support mentioned in EPUB 3.01.

Could you expand a little on your comment "a status of accepted public
draft or better is necessary for inclusion in the spec."? Is it
sufficient for schema.org to say "we'll do something based on this
draft", or is a commitment to a specific and exact set of
property/type definitions called for?

I think it's fair to say that we (schema.org) want to do something in
this area, and that developing the proposal in
http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility/ is how we'll work on
getting there.

The open issues list in
http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility/Issues_Tracker shows
that various points are still under healthy discussion in the
community, including discussion of possible property renamings. Given
this week's lively discussion I think it it clear that a lot of people
are enthusiastic to help work out these remaining issues, but that it
could be hard at this point in time to know exactly what the result of
that process will give us.

Could you help by giving more detail on what you'd hope the ultimate
outcome here might be? Would you want to include a specific list of
schema.org Accessibility properties into an EPUB 3.01 specification,
or would such a specification instead say something closer to "please
use the schema.org accessibility vocabulary [cite]"?

Thanks for any advice,

Dan


> Best
> George
>
>
> George Kerscher Ph.D.
> -In our Information Age, access to information is a fundamental human right.
> Secretary General, DAISY Consortium
> http://www.daisy.org
> Senior Officer, Accessible Technology Learning Ally originally Recording For
> the Blind & Dyslexic
> http://www.learningally.org
> President, International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF)
> http://www.idpf.org
> Member of the National Museum and Library Services  Board (IMLS)
> http://www.imls.gov
> Chair Steering Council Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), a division of the
> W3C
> http://www.w3c.org/wai
> Phone: +1 406/549-4687
> Cell:+1 406/544-2466
> Email: kerscher@montana.com
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 9 September 2013 17:23:48 UTC

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