RE: DPUB-ARIA exit criteria

Sounds good to me.

Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Lead
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>

From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 10:17 AM
To: Richard Schwerdtfeger
Cc: Michael Cooper; mgarrish@gmail.com; W3C PF - DPUB Joint Task Force; Shane McCarron; Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken
Subject: Re: DPUB-ARIA exit criteria


On 24 Oct 2016, at 15:33, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com<mailto:schwer@us.ibm.com>> wrote:

Ivan then you either have to convey to them that for something to become a standard it needs to be used or you have to remove it from the exit criteria.

They can't just expect browser vendors to take leaps of faith for them while they sit back and wait. A lot of people have made sizeable investments for them. I would also add that the work done was not limited dpub-aria. Myself and others spent countless hours driving the details/summary implementation in browsers and also the meetings on media queries.

A commitment to move from epub:type to dpub-aria is a good middle ground. I would like to see at least two do that.

I am happy to add something like this into the text, but I would prefer to have Tzviya's reaction first.

TS: This suggestion sounds good to me. We can solicit feedback from publishers using epub:type with a commitment to shift to dpub-aria.


Ivan



Rich Schwerdtfeger


----- Original message -----
From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>>
To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Cc: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org<mailto:cooper@w3.org>>, Matt Garrish <mgarrish@gmail.com<mailto:mgarrish@gmail.com>>, W3C PF - DPUB Joint Task Force <public-dpub-aria@w3.org<mailto:public-dpub-aria@w3.org>>, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io<mailto:shane@spec-ops.io>>, Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>>
Subject: Re: DPUB-ARIA exit criteria
Date: Mon, Oct 24, 2016 8:10 AM


On 24 Oct 2016, at 14:04, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com<mailto:schwer@us.ibm.com>> wrote:

Three comments:

1. Why should a W3C rec. track document care about epub:type? I would not accept this as an exit criteria for an ARIA module:
the epub:type attribute, defined for the purpose of Semantic Inflection<http://www.idpf.org/epub/31/spec/epub-contentdocs.html#sec-xhtml-semantic-inflection> in [[EPUB-Content]], is used with the related value (when specified in the detailed specification of the role) in the EPUB Structural Semantic Vocabulary<http://www.idpf.org/epub/vocab/structure/> [[EPUB-SSV]].

2. After all the significant work done by myself and members of the ARIA working group what have the digital publishers done up to now to use the DPUB ARIA spec.? Who is using it now? What effort is being made to ensure that they are used?

These two points are related. The message I got is that we have a chicken and egg issue. Publishers would not be willing (I guess) to adopt the dpub-aria terms in their own production until those are standards. Or, to be more precise, the chances that they would do that is very slim. However: publishers may have already adopted, for the same purposes, the epub:type attribute which differs from dpub-aria only syntactically. Hence, once dpub-aria becomes standard, they would switch to the new one and they can do that with, essentially, a switch in their production flow.

Maybe we can amend the statement by adding something along the lines that the epub:type users do make a statement that they intend to dpub-aria as soon as those terms are standard.


3. Why are 2 implementations of the ARIA mapping of the DPUB ARIA roles not required for exiting CR? One of the goals for using ARIA was to ensure that those roles that are needed by AT map. Currently, in this version, all map.

I was editing only the vocabulary spec. The exit criteria on the mapping document is and should be different.

Ivan



Rich




Rich Schwerdtfeger


----- Original message -----
From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>>
To: Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>>
Cc: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io<mailto:shane@spec-ops.io>>, Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org<mailto:cooper@w3.org>>, Matt Garrish <mgarrish@gmail.com<mailto:mgarrish@gmail.com>>, W3C PF - DPUB Joint Task Force <public-dpub-aria@w3.org<mailto:public-dpub-aria@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: DPUB-ARIA exit criteria
Date: Fri, Oct 21, 2016 8:30 PM


I have created a separate dpub-cr branch, and have put some text into it, see

https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/dpub-cr/aria/dpub.html

I was not sure whether the reference to 3.1 is the correct one but, I presume, by the time this document will go to Rec, EPUB3.1 will be considered as a rec, too, so it should be fine. I hope the wording is fine, but I am sure Matt will be able to make it more readable!

Cheers

Ivan


On 20 Oct 2016, at 23:55, Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>> wrote:

Hi All,

Following up on this email and today’s meeting:

1.       Ivan, would you please clarify if this was based on a discussion with Ralph? To confirm, Ralph was OK with publisher/author implementation of either the DPUB-ARIA roles or their predecessors in epub:type vocabulary?
2.       Shane, what do you need from DPUB to arrange formal testing procedures?
3.       We need to document our exit criteria for CR. Our plan is to publish in mid-November. Michael has asked us for this documentation by 4 Nov (ideally) (really no later than 8 Nov). I have not worked on this sort of thing before. I assume, Ivan and Shane that you are pros.   Happy to help out.

Tzviya

Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Lead
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>

From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:40 AM
To: Shane McCarron
Cc: Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken; Richard Schwerdtfeger; Michael Cooper
Subject: Re: chat with Ralph


On 29 Sep 2016, at 17:35, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io<mailto:shane@spec-ops.io>> wrote:

I assume you meant "However, for this case *if* we cannot do that…"

Oops, sorry…

(Never send a mail while on a call…:-)




I can imagine a really simple web service that you could submit content to that would look for role values and tabulate them.  Ask for a little information to correlate the usage with the "user" (publisher).  Map the results against the terms in the document.

If there is interest in that, I will have someone throw it together.  That's what Spec-Ops is here for!

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote:
I have chatted with him on the (vocabulary) exit criteria. Bottom line:

- Ideally, we should indeed have, for each term, at least two publishers/authors who use that term. Not necessarily in absolute full production, but at least, as a start, in some preliminary uses
- However, for this case, we cannot do that, we should have for each term, at least two publishers/authors that use the semantically equivalent epub:type value. Ie, if the only difference is syntax, then that should be fine.

Would that work?

Ivan


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Technical Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153<tel:%2B31-641044153>
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704







--
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Technical Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Technical Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704








----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Technical Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704









----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Technical Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704