W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2015

Re: DPUB module comments

From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:45:06 -0400
Message-ID: <54FF3BB2.4060809@w3.org>
To: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>, tsiegman@wiley.com, mgylling@daisy.org, matt.garrish@bell.net
CC: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>
On 09/03/2015 11:21 PM, James Craig wrote:
> I believe the DPUB draft is going to confuse some authors. A few comments below:
> http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/aria/dpub.html
> 1. Each of these roles should use the dpub- prefix to avoid confusion and name collision
>     with the main ARIA spec. If they are useful enough for mainstream adoption, we can
>     coordinate the names when the roles are pulled into the main ARIA spec. e.g. dpub-
>     chapter would very likely be adopted as an unprefixed ARIA role "chapter", but "dpub-
>     locator" is still just a link and would likely never be brought into the main spec.
>     Authors can specify these today as role="dpub-locator link" (this is a valid ARIA 1.0
>     syntax) and the UAs will fall back to the link role appropriately, while still allowing
>     parsers access to the dpub-specific role.
We agreed at the 7 January 2015 PF Editors meeting that for DPub we 
would waive the normal requirement for new role modules to have a 
prefix, because they are coordinating closely with us through the DPub 
ARIA task force. We committed to taking care during development, setting 
up a collision finding script, and using the ARIA role taxonomy 
documentation to help avoid creating similar roles with different names.

> 2. Roles should sub-level hyphenation. E.g. page-list should be dpub-pagelist.
> 3. Several of the roles are too generic. "part" for example.
> 4. Several of the roles are probably too specific. "learning-outcome" and "learning-
>     objective" for example.
> 5. Some should be expanded for clarity: "glossdef" and "qna" for example. ARIA roles don't
>     use abbreviations, with one notable exception: "img"... This was just an editorial
>     oversight that I hope to correct.
> 6. "landmarks" is going to confuse a lot of authors.
> 7. A non-abstract role name "abstract" is defined immediately after a sentence stating:
>     "Abstract roles are used for the ontology. Authors must not use abstract roles in
>     content." I recommend picking a different name, perhaps dpub-summary?
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2015 18:45:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:46:12 UTC