W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > November 1998

Re: Web report form (2)

From: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@ACM.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 21:53:38 -0500
Message-Id: <199811070308.WAA22492@mail-out-1.tiac.net>
To: dd@w3.org
Cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
At 14:58 1998/11/05 +0100, Daniel Dardailler wrote:
>>Harvey original:
>> Each report needs to identify the date or version of the URL, in case
>> it is updated.
It is to the offender's advantage to know what version is being reported.
The URL of the bad page is unlikely to change, since it may be referenced
elsewhere. How do we as reporters identify the version.

>Doesn't the date of the report (email archived) suffice ?
We can get into version creep. I'd always like a means to assure that what
I'm reviewing is what others are. For example the current rapid revision
cycle on the EO material can easily get us reporting on an old version.
Not every response is made immediately after getting the original.
>> The fixer should have the ability to return a message indicating
>> the attempts made to fix the URL.
>Just replying the report email should do it:
You assume that each report email message is automatically copied
to the offender as it is received. The time of receipt isn't an adequate
identification of the offender's version, that may have been updated
during the review time of the reporter.

>  From: w3c-wai-report@w3.org
>  To: webmaster@offender.com
>  cc: reporter@foo.com, w3c-wai-report@w3.org
>  Subject: WAI Report - www.offender.com/page
>  -------
>and replies give
Presuming that a new version number appears on that now fixed URL.
>  From: webmaster@offender.com
>  To: w3c-wai-report@w3.org
>  cc: reporter@foo.com
>  Subject: Re: WAI Report - www.offender.com/page
>  -------
>which goes to the list archive/forum of discussion.
But unless some part of the subject changes, the forum will have
no obvious distinction about the offender's version being reported.
True the timestamp is OK for rare updates. It doesn't work for fast-
changing URLs. Will it work for dynamically generated URL content, that
may not consistently have the same problems?

In a perfect world, a version indication would be part of each URL header.

Received on Friday, 6 November 1998 22:08:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:27 UTC