Matt Garrish

Maybe the minutes aren't clear, but I think there's still a misunderstanding of what the relationship sections are for. It's not a place to list things that you can use...

And to be clear, I still think we can improve the accessibility section to mention DPUB-ARIA, and probably look at the accessibility standard, too, but the "relationship to" section is...

> Older publications would conform to 1.0 or 1.1 Would they? Does it lead to requiring both accessMode and accessModeSufficient or would this change also include demoting accessMode to recommended...

The decision on the task force call today was to require both accessMode and accessModeSufficient. By only upping accessModeSufficient to a requirement and not demoting accessMode to recommended, 1.2-conformant publications...

A thought on this, if we're going to route of bumping the version number and adding new conformance strings, we might as well also shift accessMode to a recommended property....

Have you declared a prefix as in the example @TzviyaSiegman cited? If so, what version of epubcheck are you running? I can't reproduce the error if the prefix is declared....

@rickj What output are you getting from the code? The only use I can find for code 10 in list 81 is that it used to set the `real_text` variable....

Ah, okay, I understand now. Yes, since it's being interpreted from non-accessibility metadata in onix, unlike the way accessMode and accessModeSufficient are used in the epub techniques, there's no guarantee...

> as it would be appropriate when accompanied by other claims It would, yes, but are people adding accessibility metadata when they fail conformance, because that would seemingly have to...

Right, I'm just trying to figure out what we can even do here. What I'm getting from the issue are: - the algorithm is working as expected - the purpose...