Either graphics-doc or graphics-document is fine by me.
Regards,
Fred Esch
Watson, IBM, W3C
Accessibility
IBM Watson Watson Release Management and Quality
From: Rich Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com>
To: Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>
Cc: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>, ARIA Working Group
<public-aria@w3.org>, SVG-A11y TF <public-svg-a11y@w3.org>
Date: 04/28/2016 11:37 PM
Subject: Re: [SVG] graphics-doc role should be graphics-document (ARIA
has avoided inconsistent abbreviation)
I am fine with changing it but with the prefix it is a mouthful. Now would
be the time to change it. We can post it like does anyone object to the
name change and just do it if no objections. I don't want to take meeting
time for that.
Rich
Rich
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 28, 2016, at 9:34 PM, Amelia Bellamy-Royds <
amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com> wrote:
If there is consensus on the main ARIA working group to go with the
longer name, I don't have a problem with that. In the SVG
Accessibility Task Force, we did discuss a number of variations on
the name and settled on graphics-doc as a compromise between concise
and comprehensible.
I would ask for a quick resolution, though (i.e., comments on mailing
list this week & discussion at the next ARIA telcon), so we can
update all the specs sooner rather than later, and definitely before
the next heartbeat drafts.
~Amelia
On 28 April 2016 at 19:14, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> wrote:
While reviewing a related thread, I noticed the "graphics-doc" role
should be "graphics-document"... With the unfortunate exception of
the "img" role (I admit missing this), ARIA has avoided
inconsistent abbreviation.
http://www.w3.org/TR/graphics-aria-1.0/#graphics-doc
