Re: prefix for DPUB-ARIA module

+1 for doc (but I don't have a problem with dpub either)

Peter.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Charles LaPierre <charlesl@benetech.org>
wrote:

> My vote would be if doc- would gain wider adoption is to go with this (and
> its 1 less character!) :)
>
> Thanks.
>
> _______________________________
>
> Charles LaPierre
> charlesl@benetech.org
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 24, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> 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)", "DPUB mailing list (
> public-digipub-ig@w3.org)"
> Subject: prefix for DPUB-ARIA module
> Resent-From: <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
>
> Thank you,
> Tzviya
>
> *Tzviya Siegman*
> Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead
> Wiley
> 201-748-6884
> tsiegman@wiley.com
>
>
>