- From: Leif H Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 19:23:48 +0200
- To: john@foliot.ca
- Cc: rubys@intertwingly.net, public-html-a11y@w3.org, fielding@gbiv.com
To avoid that confusion, I suggest to replace "ghetto" with "community". The RDFa + HTML spec is defined by the RDFa community. As our spec would be defined by the A11Y community. Leif ------- Opprinnelig melding ------- > Fra: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> > Til: xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no, rubys@intertwingly.net > Cc: public-html-a11y@w3.org, fielding@gbiv.com > Sendt: 21/9/'12, 18:16 > > Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> >> >> If Microdata and HTML+RDFa are ghetto specs, then I agree that ghetto >> specs can work fine. >> > > The current proposed path has warranted some serious deliberation and > discussion, which is happening now. > > Culturally, I would caution that we collectively be very careful about > our use of terms such as "ghetto" with regard to accessibility and People > With Disabilities, and further I have some significant concerns about the > expression of any extension specification to HTML that has any kind of > appearance of marginalization. > > Put another way, both the RDFa spec and the MathML spec are (if I am to > understand the thrust of the larger idea) extensions to HTML5. Yet we do > not highlight the inclusion of MathML to the spec in the same way that we > do RDFa. The absolutely last thing we need is to have is even an internal > notion of HTML+a11y (in the same way that we have HTML+RDFa), and so I > would suggest that one way we can avoid this is to be extremely careful in > our choice of words: casual observers may be lead to think something that > is not intended or true. > > Cheers! > > JF > >
Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 17:24:44 UTC