{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/w3c/aria/issues/450","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/w3c/aria","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/w3c/aria/issues/450/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/w3c/aria/issues/450/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/w3c/aria/issues/450/events","html_url":"https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/450","id":181593741,"number":450,"title":"dpub: Endnote references","user":{"login":"jcsteh","id":4166475,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4166475?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/jcsteh","html_url":"https://github.com/jcsteh","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jcsteh/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jcsteh/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jcsteh/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jcsteh/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jcsteh/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jcsteh/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jcsteh/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jcsteh/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jcsteh/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":2,"created_at":"2016-10-07T06:25:16Z","updated_at":"2016-10-07T13:53:55Z","closed_at":null,"body":"As I understand it, it's sometimes desirable to reference an endnote. However, the `doc-noteref` role seems specific to footnotes:\r\n\r\n> A reference to a footnote, typically appearing as a superscripted number or symbol in the main body of text.\r\n\r\n1. Has it been determined that endnote references are not necessary?\r\n2. If not, is `doc-noteref` intended for use with endnotes?\r\n3. If so, the spec needs to clarify this.\r\n4. `doc-noteref` could be used for both footnotes and endnotes. The problem with this is that footnotes and endnotes can't be distinguished without traversing to the referenced note. Also, as I understand it, footnote and endnote references are usually distinguished visually, so I'd argue there should be an equivalent distinction in ARIA.\r\n5. Alternatively, a new role should be introduced for endnote references."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/w3c/aria/issues/comments/252258101","html_url":"https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/450#issuecomment-252258101","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/w3c/aria/issues/450","id":252258101,"user":{"login":"mattgarrish","id":1565164,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1565164?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/mattgarrish","html_url":"https://github.com/mattgarrish","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mattgarrish/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mattgarrish/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mattgarrish/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mattgarrish/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mattgarrish/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mattgarrish/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mattgarrish/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mattgarrish/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mattgarrish/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-10-07T13:53:55Z","updated_at":"2016-10-07T13:53:55Z","body":"I'm fine with your proposed change.\r\n\r\nAs I recall, we tried to merge endnote with footnote originally, so that's why noteref only referenced footnote. We then added endnote back because of the different way that notes are included (endnotes inherit from listitem because they're grouped at the end; footnotes from section because they occur individually near their references). We were told that putting footnote on list items would remove their list semantics. It looks like the noteref definition just didn't get updated accordingly.\r\n\r\nI'm not sure there's much benefit in adding another link type for this case; we'd have preferred to have done without the formatting distinction, and it's not terribly relevant to the nature of the note itself. More important is the backlink to return to the reference location."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"mattgarrish"}}