RE: prefix for DPUB-ARIA module

The vocabulary is intended to be applicable to any web document. There's an intersection with whatever this group might eventually develop, but what you want to call this work shouldn't necessarily filter down to the technologies implemented by it.

 

Our original intention was to have the roles unprefixed in ARIA core, but as ARIA expands and modularizes (an SVG module is also in development) there are potential conflicts between names -- a "part", for example, as discussed previously. For that reason, we were moved to a module, not because there's an intention that these roles are only useful for publications that conform to this group's work.

 

And that's where the prefix universality question comes in. We want anyone who has a glossary or an index in their document to use these roles and not think that another competing role is necessary because the ones we've defined are not for web documents.

 

Matt

 

From: Bill Kasdorf [mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com] 
Sent: September 24, 2015 1:16 PM
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>; Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com>; PF (public-pfwg@w3.org) <public-pfwg@w3.org>; DPUB mailing list (public-digipub-ig@w3.org) <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Subject: RE: prefix for DPUB-ARIA module

 

+1 to Leonard's comment.

 

If the vocabulary will be designed to be applicable to any kind of document, then "doc-".

 

If the vocabulary will be designed specifically to address publishing semantics, then "dpub-".

 

I guess I do have to ask, if this applies to any kind of document, why this module is distinct from any other WAI-ARIA module, which also presumably apply to any kind of document.

 

--Bill K

 

From: Leonard Rosenthol [mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 12:05 PM
To: Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken; 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: 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>