Re: prefix for DPUB-ARIA module

I would only comment that we need to be 100% consistent across all our work (which goes towards all our terminology discussions, etc.).

If we are the Digital Publications IG doing work on publications – then we should call all our stuff Publications and focus strictly on the requirements of that industry.   However, if we are going to focus on all aspects of documents, then we should rename and re-scope the IG, change our terminology accordingly and move on from there.

I don’t believe we should have it both ways – seems to continue to confuse…

Leonard

From: "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken"
Date: Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 11:39 AM
To: "PF (public-pfwg@w3.org<mailto:public-pfwg@w3.org>)", "DPUB mailing list (public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>)"
Subject: prefix for DPUB-ARIA module
Resent-From: <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 11:40 AM

Hi All,

We had a discussion in today’s DPUB-ARIA meeting regarding an open issue on the Digital Publishing WAI-ARIA Module 1.0 [1]. In the current draft [2], the prefix is dpub-, this issue raises the point that a more generic prefix might lead to wider adoption of the spec. Others feel that “dpub-“ conveys professionalism and authority. The proposed prefix is “doc-“.

Any opinions about “dpub-“ versus “doc-“?

[1] https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/87

[2] www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dpub-aria-1.0-20150707<http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dpub-aria-1.0-20150707>

Thank you,
Tzviya

Tzviya Siegman
Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>