Re: Comments regarding the Tools Module

This is just going to a first working draft, so it is simple to revist.... All the best Lisa Seeman LinkedIn, Twitter ---- On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 23:50:54 +0300 John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote ---- 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. 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 (Date and Time Standard) 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