See minutes online for a more detailed record of the discussions.
DPUB ARIA 2.0 is on the WG’s charter, but there were discussions considering what it actually means to be in the ARIA spec, and which EPUB vocabulary terms are relevant. We may not have any additions for DPUB-ARIA, other than errata; the decision might be to “simply” issue a DPUB-ARIA 1.1 version with the errata handled, and not go further.
The real issue is how to handle more general terms (e.g., those using
epub:type in EPUB); those do not really fit well with the ARIA model. E.g., titles are elements that more definitely belong in HTML—it’s a non-structural label, at least how we have done it in EPUB (it’s not the title of the publication).
There was a longer discussion on how to react when, for suggestions like list head/caption/title, the reaction is “here is a polyfill, provide uptake”. In case of, say, accessibility related possible extensions this approach does not work, people invest only when there is a standard. There was some discussions on how to solve the different viewpoints: provide standard elements that people can use vs. the caution of browser engine creators to pick up too many incoming request. The answer may be to provide standard custom elements for communities, but that is still to be discussed further…
This is just an FYI, as far as this WG is concerned.
The EPUB3 CG has put forward a proposal for an EPUB 3.2. The idea is to replace EPUB 3.1 by removing features that result in a backward incompatibility with EPUB 3.0. 3.2 would include the new features of 3.1 that does not create problems. EPUB 3.2 could also be put into an ISO standardization process.
At the moment, this is a proposal for the Publishing Business Group, which should decide on this within about 10 days. If it is accepted, the EPUB3 CG will work out and provide a new specification in the form of a CG Report.