RE: Looking for some clarification

> However: would all SSV terms pass such a requirement?

 

Maybe not all, but probably more than you think if we’re going by use in content. Landmarks are a niche use of the vocabulary, for sure, but use in content (esp. in publisher workflows) is not. I can’t speak to who’s using what right now, but in the past Hachette, Pearson and others were making extensive use of the vocabulary.

 

But what exactly would be the difference between a “normative” term and an “informative” one? They’re not going to “do” anything in the vast majority of cases, anyway, so what would we be trying to signal to authors by adding labels? Do informative ones generate warnings, or what makes them different?

 

If the idea is we deprecate the ones we can’t find support for, how can we be sure we’ve captured the complete picture of use given how many more authors/publishers there are than reading systems? RS feature checking is far less complicated.

 

It’d also be problematic to call the whole vocabulary informative when it’s a normative default of the epub:type attribute, which is normatively required in places like the navigation document. It’d create a cascading failure of informativeness!

 

As to the other vocabularies, I recall we did a review of their properties back in 3.1, which is why a number of them, like meta-auth and the various link metadata record types, are now deprecated. Their use is a bit more assured.

 

Matt

 

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> 
Sent: July 30, 2021 4:52 AM
To: W3C EPUB 3 Working Group <public-epub-wg@w3.org>
Cc: Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>; Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>; John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>; Dan Lazin <dlazin@google.com>
Subject: Re: Looking for some clarification

 

(First of all, thanks to John for starting this thread. Never ever apologize for asking relevant questions!)

 

Editorial issues put aside, Matt is right that current spec describes the SSV as normative. However, is this realistic in terms of the W3C process?

 

We generally have an issue at W3C on how we would define testing and implementation for vocabulary terms (I explicitly cc Dan here, who is our testing champion…). The generally accepted approach is that for vocabulary items the term "implementation" is a a misnomer and it should be considered to be an alias to the term "usage" for our CR process. Indeed, there is no RS behavioral requirement for any of the SSV entries, so traditional requirements on implementations would not apply. Instead we may, for example, define "usage" of a specific vocabulary term, for our CR process, that there are at least two publishers out there who use these terms in production (hoping that at least some reading systems do something sensible with it). Such, or similar, ways for "testing" (per W3C process) for vocabularies was used in other specifications in the past.

 

However: would all SSV terms pass such a requirement? All the answers on John's mail suggest that the answer would be no (and Tzviya made this point explicitly), because many terms have been introduced to the spec as part of an aspiration for something. Ie, we may be creating a problem for ourselves. Shouldn't we mark the SSV vocabulary as non-normative overall with, possibly, explicitly mark a few terms as normative because we know they are accepted by the community (e.g., landmarks)? Note that if we keep all the terms as normative and then we fail on the CR tests, the usual expectation would be to remove them altogether, which we do not want (I presume).

 

This raises (again?) the question on how we would handle all the metadata vocabularies in the spec (Matt, please, do not kill me for raising this problem again…)?

 

I realize that, eventually, the right place to discuss this will be a github issue. But a preliminary discussion on this thread may not harm (and our fearless chairs may want to put it on our next WG call's agenda…)

 

Ivan





On 29 Jul 2021, at 20:30, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com <mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

> rereading this and I now understand that only section D.8.1 is non-normative … it was a nuance that I missed on first read

 

Ah, the subsection labels again! We wrote out some of these sections earlier this revision in the package vocabularies to avoid a similar kind of issue, as I recall.

 

We could probably do the same here and merge the paragraphs under the Structural Semantics heading to get rid of that subsection (and label), as all the other “About this vocabulary” sections are now gone. I’ll open an issue to fix this.

 

Thanks!

 

Matt

 

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca <mailto:john@foliot.ca> > 
Sent: July 29, 2021 2:18 PM
To: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com <mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com> >
Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca <mailto:john@foliot.ca> >; W3C EPUB 3 Working Group <public-epub-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-epub-wg@w3.org> >; Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com <mailto:avneesh.sg@gmail.com> >; Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org> >
Subject: Re: Looking for some clarification

 

Matt and Tzviya,

 

Thank you, this is most helpful. Matt, to your last question, I apologize in that I saw this:


D.8 Structural Semantics Vocabulary


D.8.1 About this Vocabulary


This section is non-normative.

...and got ahead of myself - rereading this and I now understand that only section D.8.1 is non-normative; D.8.2 through D.8.19 are not tagged as non-normative (so, ergo, normative), but it was a nuance that I missed on first read. As simply a suggestion, perhaps moving that around a bit may help (but not a hill to die on):

D.8 Structural Semantics Vocabulary
Note: Section D.8.1 is non-normative, all other sections are normative.

D.8.1 About this Vocabulary
(...just a thought: if I missed it, it's possible others might as well...)

 

JF

 

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 12:39 PM Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com <mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi John,

 

> Looking specifically at usage in <nav epub:type="landmarks">, is there a minimum set or collection of landmark-values expected in a publication? 

 

No. We’ve looked at this issue in the past, but the landmarks are for reading system use and there’s no requirement that reading systems implement any functionality based on landmarks. I believe the only behaviour that’s been documented as having some uptake is including a link with epub:type=bodymatter so that reading systems can automatically skip the front matter when opening a publication. But that’s not universal and not something we’d want to enforce now.

 

> I am *presuming* that the Partition value (actually, any epub:type's value) should also use a "Human Readable" label (accessible name),

 

It would be helpful if the links were exposed to users, yes, but the landmarks links are the more central part. The original idea was that the reading system could use these links to implement its UI (e.g., have a dedicated button to open a glossary or index), so the text of the links would most likely be discarded to provide a consistent interface. Listing all kinds of general content destinations in the landmarks for users is largely redundant with the table of contents.

 

> Document Partitions vs. Document Sections and Components, does one category have stronger or more important semantics in practical usage? 

 

Front, body and back matter are conceptual divisions of a publication that overarch the content. Front matter in most English texts, for example, is demarked by roman numerals and contains title pages, tables of contents, dedications, forwards, etc.

 

You don’t necessarily have to pick only one semantic, in other words, as this isn’t the role attribute where only one is recognized. All of the listed semantics are applicable. This is also because the semantics (and epub:type) were designed first for publishers wanting to use the semantics in internal workflows.

 

They then took on a life of their own and have been used (and abused) in a variety of ways for different purposes in EPUB. Placing them on links in the landmarks is a useful hack, for example, but what does it mean that a link is the front matter and/or a forward? That the semantics describe what is at the end of the link is a creation that only exists for the landmarks, I believe.

 

Structuring the list of landmarks probably does nothing but further complex an underutilized feature of EPUB. You’re starting to turn it back into a table of contents. You could put two semantics on a single item if it makes sense (e.g., a forward is also your first piece of front matter), but otherwise I’d keep the list flat. I’m kind of surprised the restriction to a flat list of entries, as we have for the page list, isn’t also defined for the landmarks.

 

> why is the Structural Semantics Vocabulary non-normative in the Recommendation?

 

The appendixes are normative unless marked otherwise and I don’t see a non-normative label on the vocabulary. Where are you seeing it is informative?

 

Matt

 

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca <mailto:john@foliot.ca> > 
Sent: July 29, 2021 12:45 PM
To: W3C EPUB 3 Working Group <public-epub-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-epub-wg@w3.org> >; Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com <mailto:avneesh.sg@gmail.com> >; Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org> >
Subject: Looking for some clarification

 

Hi All,

 

As I continue to digest the current EPUB 3.3 Rec, I'd like to ask some specific questions (if I may) regarding Structural Semantics Vocabulary*. 

Specifically, I am looking to understand the relationship/similarities/differences between Document Partitions <https://www.w3.org/TR/epub-33/#partitions>  and Document Sections and Components <https://www.w3.org/TR/epub-33/#sections> , as they appear (to me) to be very similar in function. (But, for example, would/could a Section or Component be a child of a Partition? Or are they hierarchically equal? )

* Looking specifically at usage in <nav epub:type="landmarks">, is there a minimum set or collection of landmark-values expected in a publication? 

* if yes, what are they?
* if no, should there be? (why/why not?)

* Additionally, from an accessibility perspective, while the Rec is currently silent on this specific scenario, based on the following supplied code example <https://www.w3.org/TR/epub-33/#example-33>  I am *presuming* that the Partition value (actually, any epub:type's value) should also use a "Human Readable" label (accessible name), as seen here with the epub:type of bodymatter, where the label is Start of Content:

<nav epub:type="landmarks">

    <h2>Guide</h2>

    <ol>

        <li><a epub:type="toc" href="#toc">Table of Contents</a></li>

        <li><a epub:type="loi" href="content.html#loi">List of Illustrations</a></li>

        <li><a epub:type="bodymatter" href="content.html#bodymatter">Start of Content</a></li>

    </ol>

</nav>

 

I ask this, because currently I am seeing (in sample books I am reviewing) that in many instances the epub:type value is being echoed as the human-readable label as well (i.e. <a epub:type="Frontmatter" href="...">Frontmatter</a>), which my gut is cringing at, as being less than useful for some users with different forms of cognitive disability. 
(It's a bit of a stretch to be sure, but WCAG SC 3.1.3 Unusual Words <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#unusual-words>  (Level AAA) states: A mechanism is available for identifying specific definitions of words or phrases used in an unusual or restricted way, including idioms and jargon. - and to *my* mind at least, Frontmatter is fairly "jargony <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-jargon> " on the surface - it's clearly not a common term in regular public usage AFAIK. Ditto "backmatter".) (@Avneesh?)

* Returning to  Document Partitions vs. Document Sections and Components, does one category have stronger or more important semantics in practical usage? i.e. both Frontmatter and Forward feel very similar (synonymous?) to each other conceptually - If I had to choose just one, which would/should I choose? (and why?) Or, as I asked previously, could I/would I seek to do something like this? 

<nav epub:type="landmarks">

    <h2>Guide</h2>

    <ol>

        <li><a epub:type="Frontmatter" href="content.html#frontmatter">Frontmatter</a> (* ya, yech)

            <ol>

                <li><a epub:type="Forward" href="content.html#forward">Forward</a></li>

                <li><a epub:type="Preface" href="content.html#preface">Preface</a></li>

            </ol>

        </li>

        <li><a epub:type="loi" href="content.html#loi">List of Illustrations</a></li>

        <li><a epub:type="bodymatter" href="content.html#bodymatter">Start of Content</a></li>

    </ol>

</nav>

(Or am I overthinking this?)

Thanks in advance for any insights you can provide me.

 

JF

 

(* At the risk of asking too many questions, why is the Structural Semantics Vocabulary non-normative in the Recommendation? It appears to be furnishing specific definitions to multiple value terms. As a standards wonk, it strikes me that those definitions would probably want to be normative - or, again, am I missing something here? @Ivan - has there been any discussion of moving those definitions into the proposed W3C Registry <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/335> ?)

-- 

John Foliot | Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility

"I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." - Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"




 

-- 

John Foliot | Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility

"I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." - Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"

 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704