- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 15:38:29 -0400
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C Public Archives <www-archive@w3.org>, W3C Chairs of EPUB 3 WG <group-epub-wg-chairs@w3.org>, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
On 9/8/2021 9:37 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > this type of question comes up regularly, but I did not see any clear > cut answer. > > The EPUB Accessibility spec[1] has a section on package metadata[2] to > refer to metadata like access mode or accessibility features. The > specification defines these terms in general, meaning that it is not > properly defined which terms are to be used in a real metadata > instantiation; this is left to the separate WG Note on a11y > techniques[3] which reveals the thinly veiled fact that, in practice, > these general terms refer to their equivalents in schema.org > <http://schema.org>[4]. Indeed, all the terms defined in [2] are, > actually, defined in schema.org <http://schema.org>, and those are the > only mappings for those terms. Those terms are not out of the blue, > actually: they have been developed, originally, in cooperation with the > IMS Global[5] and are now maintained on [6]. > > The reason of this somewhat weird setting in [2] is to avoid normatively > referring to schema.org <http://schema.org>. Actually, the > accessibility spec has an earlier version published at the ISO, and in > ISO land it was a clear no-no to do so. However, W3C is meant to be more > flexible and therefore the question does arise. However, our document on > normative references[7] is not 100% clear cut for me. > > Hence this mail: does W3C has an official position as for a normative > reference to schema.org <http://schema.org> terms? Our position will be driven by our guidelines: https://www.w3.org/2013/09/normative-references This is never a clear cut and it varies based on different factors, including the stability of the referenced parts, status of implementations, or opportunities. > Specifically, is it > possible to simplify [1] and make a clear reference to schema.org > <http://schema.org> instead of the hand-weaving approach we have there > currently? In case of a positive answer, can we, possibly, add a > reference to schema.org <http://schema.org> in [7] just as we do with > the WhatWG? It's possible that Ralph is a lot more familiar with schema.org than I am and feels he has enough information to give guidance. Otherwise, you'll need to provide an analysis of the references based on our guidelines. In such case, I recommend that you (or someone from your group) go through each question raised in our guidelines and provide an answer (extra point is given if those are publicly documented). Philippe
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2021 19:38:33 UTC