> On Apr 28, 2016, at 8:36 PM, Rich Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am fine with changing it but with the prefix it is a mouthful. If you want it shorter, the other abbreviation change to consider is whether the prefix is too long. There is no precedent for non-abbreviations in prefixing (dpub- is already an accepted abbreviation) so you could consider a shorter prefix g- gr- gfx- etc. > 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://www.w3.org/TR/graphics-aria-1.0/#graphics-doc> >> >> >> >>
Received on Friday, 29 April 2016 17:25:18 UTC