Re: Issue-742: Proposal aria-destination

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>
wrote:

> On 2015-10-16 12:44 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
>
>> I see. Perhaps the semantic bit here is link type (aka normal link or
>> definition link) rather than link target. So I would go with new role for
>> this example.
>>
> Exactly.  The semantic is the type of link.  Are you suggesting something
> like:
>
> - role="link" for normal links,
> - role="deflink" for definition links,
> - role="bibliolink"for links into the bibliography,
> - and so on?
>

I would probably drop 'link' word to keep names nicer, and would end up
having something like role='term' that is a link to a definition and
role='reference' that is a link to a biblio item.


>
> That's similar to dpub's suggestions (from
> http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/aria/dpub.html#role_definitions):
>
> doc-biblioref: A reference to a bibliography entry.
> doc-glossref: A reference to a glossary definition
> doc-location: A link that allows the user to jump to a related location in
> the content (e.g., from a footnote to its reference, from an index entry to
> where the topic is discussed, or from a glossary definition to where the
> term is used).
> doc-noteref: A reference to a footnote, typically appearing as a
> superscripted number or symbol in the main body of text.
>

yeah, maybe names are not best, but approach seems making sense.


>
> To summarize, the possibilities are:
> - add more role values that specify the type of link, or
> - use @aria-destination in conjunction with role="link" to qualify the
> type of link, or
> - use @rel to so qualify.


imo destination approach is less suitable for dpub use case. If you don't
want to bloat the role taxonomy then you could try to use multiple roles
like role='link term', after all, a term doesn't have to be a link.



>
>
> --
> ;;;;joseph.
>
> 'Array(16).join("wat" - 1) + " Batman!"'
>            - G. Bernhardt -
>
>