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

RE: Best citation format for accessibility

From: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 21:25:25 +0000
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "public-digipub-ig@w3.org" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CY1PR0601MB14224DD73628D7115298E643DF450@CY1PR0601MB1422.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Thanks. And do you see any inherent problem in this microdata/RDFa-in-schema.org approach conflicting in any way with ARIA? Is there any reason the same sort of semantics couldn't or shouldn't be captured both ways? This is not a rhetorical question. Your answer may be yes, there is a reason, and if so I'd like to know that!

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@berjon.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:30 PM
To: Bill Kasdorf; public-digipub-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Best citation format for accessibility

On 22/09/2015 15:36 , Bill Kasdorf wrote:
> Agreed, starting from CrossRef is fine and arguably best, because 
> that's how both citations and article metadata are made resolvable.
> This is just the direction I was hoping for! And aren't the resulting 
> semantics (as shown by the example in your previous e-mail) useful for 
> AT? Seems to me that's just what AT would want.

In many ways, yes, it's exactly what AT would want. But to the best of my knowledge AT doesn't make use of that sort of semantics just yet, and I don't know that anyone is entirely clear on how it could. So we have to make do with what's at the raw HTML level.

• Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon • http://science.ai/ — intelligent science publishing •
Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2015 21:25:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:12 UTC