Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
[3.1] conflict between Packages section 5.4.1 and DPUB-ARIA? #941
Section 5.4.1 ( http://www.idpf.org/epub/31/spec/epub-packages.html#sec-package-nav-def-model ) says the content model of
But DPUB-ARIA ( https://www.w3.org/TR/dpub-aria-1.0/#exit_criteria ) makes
And it's impossible to restrict the model of all
There was discussion about whether the fact that publishers are already using epub:type was sufficient to prove use of the WAI-ARIA module. That section, as I recall, was trying to make clear that we need publishers to commit to using ARIA role for accessibility where they are currently using epub:type, not that were trying to sneak a backdoor change into EPUB that would force people to stop using epub:type as it is defined in the specifications and replace it with role.
We rejected migrating to ARIA role for semantics in 3.1, and that section doesn't change that decision.
Authors should not use or rely on epub:type where they are expressing semantics for accessibility -- a given since it never got AT support. We recommend adding both attributes in the accessibility techniques to cover both cases.
It is kind of hard to decipher from the current prose, which does seem a bit drastic in its expectations, but that's at least my understanding.
Any thoughts @iherman ?
Closing this issue as nothing to fix. I confirmed that the wording in the ARIA spec was only to highlight that publishers need to make a firm commitment to use the vocabulary as soon as it is published to count in the exit criteria. They do not have to replace epub:type, and certainly not where it is required by the EPUB specifications.