W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > April 2015

Re: case for abstract?

From: Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) <rse@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:49:31 -0700
Message-ID: <552D28FB.2010402@rfc-editor.org>
To: "public-digipub-ig@w3.org" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
CC: "public-dpub-aria@w3.org" <public-dpub-aria@w3.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 4/14/15 7:41 AM, Bill Kasdorf wrote:
>
> Good point. Heather, am I right that they are clearly and explicitly
labelled as abstracts in the content? That has a bearing on the AT
issues, imo.--Bill
>

Yes.  Labelled for both human and machine consumption.  The XML tagging
looks like this:


2.1.  <abstract>

   Contains the abstract of the document.  See [RFC7322] for more
   information on restrictions for the abstract.

   This element appears as a child element of: <front> (Section 2.27).

   Content model:

   One or more <t> elements (Section 2.54)

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-xml2rfc/?include_text=1)

- -Heather
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVLSj7AAoJEER/xjINbZoGU70H/j2qUEMBom0422fWp22b9eMe
S2j4G3kSc43fF9FzTAxXqlEShz+63qh+ZewrWbXLmgwll3nx66VQ1HtKy+Afp+7t
zGhDvUSD79YjHxSl41aDJSr4gR+i+vkLY485LIcWtUjG/nsPZzavljFAWV6yeTq2
M+1JClgfvqQeFNAKOvFWPvHtt/A+4ygtSQgqAS2nD8pPMS8Cv3QMuqDK/z/mq7sp
laBa1nF5fINKE35HbsqH6S0/eaykFp3A8xNGR5C/+G+IsmK1gMb/LSF5g6Qi9EAX
STd0XxSHpIv3zXua8HiqYGlDd6s5KbIuUNrpi+AqehSnSGmodk6/EWvMyhs8UZc=
=P3oY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2015 14:50:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:35:59 UTC