W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-apa@w3.org > May 2017

Re: Another way forward? (Just an idea for discussion)

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 12:09:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAdDpDYmhECdaALkoQGn_FLcidPyRFuGc1DuKPS+e+D0U8LMxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Cc: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, W3C WAI Accessible Platform Architectures <public-apa@w3.org>, public-rqtf@w3.org, DPUB mailing list <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
I think Manifest is a good term and a useful concept... I think the
"manifest" part of it translates fairly accurately to part of our
definition of a web page, which is defined as

"... plus any other resources that are used in the rendering or intended to
be rendered together with it by a user agent
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#useragentdef>"

Manifest is elegant and I like it, but I don't think it adds anything to
our definition of web page... except that in a future version (silver???)
we may want to drop the URI bit and go with Manifest file. Perhaps it could
find its way into an SC???

However, I don't think for 2.1 we want to swap out "web page" for "manifest
file". I think it would be too jarring for a dot release. I'm glad to hear
about it though and think we should keep it on our radar for future
discussions.


Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 11:50 AM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:

> Greetings all,
>
> As part of an APA task I was assigned, I recently reviewed another W3C
> Working Draft ("Web Publications Use Cases and Requirements -
> https://www.w3.org/TR/pwp-ucr/) which introduces a proposed concept of a
> Manifest file, defined there as:
>
> "...an abstract means to contain information necessary to the proper
> management, rendering, and so on, of a publication. This is opposed to
> metadata that contains information on the content of the publication like
> author, publication date, and so on. The precise format of how such a
> manifest is stored is not considered in this document."
>
> I began to wonder aloud if using a similar mechanism (up to, and including
> piggy-backing on the Digital Publishing's IG concept of 'manifest' above)
> might not be a more efficient and economical way of capturing and conveying *personalization
> options* at a site-wide level (as opposed to the "page" or single-screen
> level). I could envision this addressing concerns from both the COGA and LV
> Task Forces in a fashion that scales efficiently for developers.
>
> While I don't have a clear vision of how all of this might be accomplished
> today, it strikes me as well that working in concert with the Digital
> Publishing Group on this piece of the larger puzzle could be quite fruitful.
>
> Please note that I am not at this time suggesting we abandon efforts
> produced to date, but I am suggesting that we may want to step back a bit
> and ingest the idea of a manifest file as part of our efforts, as clearly
> other groups within the W3C are using "manifests" (and/or are proposing to
> do so). See also: https://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest/
>
> Thus, I open this for discussion only - but off the top I think there is
> some real merit in thinking about this more.
>
> JF
> --
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>
Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2017 16:10:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:55:26 UTC