RE: Question about philosophy

+1

I had drafted many of these same comments in my reply to Matt last night but took them out because I thought I should keep my mouth shut on the matter. ;-)

The main deleted point was basically identical to this from Liam:

>> It would be nice if unrecognized unprefixed values were errors and >
unrecognized prefixed ones not, but that’s not a determination we > can make here, and not defined or required by ARIA.

>No, but it's feedback we can give to the PF Working Group.

>We're here to change the Web :-)

I would enthusiastically endorse the pre-registered prefix idea.

--Bill K

-----Original Message-----
From: Liam R. E. Quin [mailto:liam@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 1:17 AM
To: Matt Garrish
Cc: Bill Kasdorf; Nick Ruffilo; public-digipub-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Question about philosophy

On Mon, 2015-04-13 at 19:05 -0400, Matt Garrish wrote:

> There’s a difference between what @role allows and what validators >
allow. There isn’t a restriction on the values you can use per the > specification, but HTML validators restrict the attribute to the set > of roles defined in the ARIA 1.0 specification. Unrecognized > semantics are ignored and AT either fallback to a recognized value > in the attribute or to the implied semantics of the element, but you > may still get the appearance of non-compliance.
>
> It would be nice if unrecognized unprefixed values were errors and >
unrecognized prefixed ones not, but that’s not a determination we > can make here, and not defined or required by ARIA.

No, but it's feedback we can give to the PF Working Group.

We're here to change the Web :-)


>
> At this point, though, we also fall into the problem of labels as >
prefixes. There is nothing to say who owns “dpub-“; it lacks a > unique identifier. So slapping a “prefix” on your vocabulary isn’t > even completely safe short of some additional extension modifier, or > using RDFa prefixes.

The ARIA spec could have a built-in list of prefixes, too, rather like the data-* attributes in HTML 5, where the prefix "data-" is pre- registered.

> [...]

> It’s easy to say all abstracts are summaries, but for whom is that >
helpful? It’s less information for the reader. It’s less specificity > for the publisher. It’s problematic across domains leading to > specialization.

It's useful to anyone processing a document who understand something about the context and domain.

This is the same argument we had about XML on the Web -- what use is a Florbl element if no-oneknows what it means? Well, usually the Florbelists know. But how do other people find out? And how does a search engine display a Florblin in a result snippet?

So it might be that some form of subclassing approach would work --
  role="abstract.wsj"


Liam

Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2015 14:35:14 UTC