We are working on getting agreement on the term. There is some talk about
using rel. but that creates other issues.
Matt, would you like me to change the dpub- prefixes to doc- prefixes in
the dpub aria module?
I am doing it now for the mapping spec.
Rich
Rich Schwerdtfeger
From: <matt.garrish@bell.net>
To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Tzviya - Hoboken
Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com>
Cc: "DPUB-ARIA public-dpub-aria@w3.org" <public-dpub-aria@w3.org>
Date: 09/30/2015 03:42 PM
Subject: RE: [dpub-aria] 20151001 agenda
It's on my plate to remove those from the document. I just wanted
confirmation of term last week, as I didn't see it in the last published
draft and I must have been viewing a cached version of the nightly build as
I couldn't find it there when I looked.
Matt
To: tsiegman@wiley.com
CC: public-dpub-aria@w3.org
From: schwer@us.ibm.com
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:43:43 -0500
Subject: Re: [dpub-aria] 20151001 agenda
Tzviya,
We have these roles dpub-glossterm and dpub-glossref. Is there any reason
we cannot simply use the term and Definiton roles :
http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/aria/aria.html#definition
http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/aria/aria.html#term
Seeing that these would reside in a Glossary region. We could require that
the Glossary have definition and term as required descendants.
Rich
Rich Schwerdtfeger
