Comments regarding the Tools Module

Greetings,

As part of the research I did for the newly proposed notation scheme I
floated on today's call, I had the opportunity to revisit the Tools Module
page <https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/tools/index.html>. I
have two comments to offer:

Re: *3.2.1 messageimportance*
(see: https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/90)

Would not "importance" be a higher level requirement than just for
messages? For example, in a scenario where a page is being "simplified",
wouldn't the author want to denote sections of the content that is
"critical" (and so do not "simplify it" away)? Could we not just reduce
this to a value of "importance" and let it cover more use-cases?


Re: *3.2.4 messagetime*
(see: https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/91)

Currently this states:

*Supported values:* 24 hour date time format. DD.MM.YEAR.HOUR.MM -
DD.MM.YEAR.HOUR.MM where the second date is an optional exclusive expiry
date.

May I suggest that this pattern is actually something of an anti-pattern
(or at least, is "non-standard"). Can I propose that instead we require the
date format to follow
ISO 8601 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601> (Date and Time Standard)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601> which takes the format:

2018-09-17T16:48:58Z
(YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS + Z which denotes UTC)

Additionally, the ISO notation allows the author to specify the time based
on either UTC or with a UTC off-set (which is not addressed in the current
draft)

Neither or these comments/issues are barn-burners, but we should perhaps
revisit?

JF



-- 
*John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist

Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good

deque.com