DPUB module comments

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.

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 03:22:21 UTC