RE: Continuing discussion on Polyfills

Sorry incomplete draft sent by accident!  The boundaries of what defines a
publication is not really what I'm referr8ng too, though.  The boundaries
that define what the browser should handle natively vs. not is more my
question, as I feel it pertains directly to the use of web app manifest
structure or not.  That is also the debate that I referred to that I'm
guessing I missed!

On Feb 5, 2018 5:14 PM, "Jeff Buehler" <jeff.buehler@knowbly.com> wrote:

> Sounds good Deborah thanks... I missed most of that debate, and had the
> feeling that I had missed something!  Without a clear understanding
>
> On Feb 5, 2018 5:10 PM, <deborah.kaplan@suberic.net> wrote:
>
>> Nick said:
>>
>> In being reductionist, I don’t want to downplay or diminish any of the
>>> need for accessibility.  I don’t know enough to know what additional
>>> support is needed, but are any of the asks specifically
>>> publication-related, or are a publications’ needs for additional
>>> accessibility also the needs of the general web.  I assume they would be
>>> general, but again, I don’t know.
>>>
>>
>> Short answer: Yes, the identified accessibility needs are specific to
>> publications.
>>
>> Medium answer: Where the DPUB and PWG accessibility people have
>> identified needs we belive are part of the general web, they've been
>> forwarded on to the appropriate groups in the W3C.
>>
>> Long answer: As Tzviya said, these are all documented in the use cases.
>> Don't just look under the heading "accessibility"; the accessibility use
>> cases were incorporated into the main body of the use cases. Some of the
>> use cases aren't even specifically called out as acessibility, but are very
>> clearly needed for accessibility, and are also specific to publications.
>>
>> We have also endlessly rehashed the debate over where do we draw the
>> boundaries of a publication (eg, the entire range from "basically any HTML
>> fragment" to "must have an ISBN"). There is no perfect answer to the
>> debate. Every single argument folks have made on the question has plenty of
>> merit, but the problem is that (1) there's no perfect place to draw the
>> line, and (2) we need to draw a line somewhere.  Let's take what we've
>> already decided as givens.
>>
>> Deborah
>>
>

-- 
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. 
Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), 
you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any of its 
contents. If you have received the message in error, please advise by 
replying to this e-mail and deleting the message.