W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 1999

Re: Content negotiation example needed.

From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:10:43 +0900
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-Id: <19990920171043J.mimasa@w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
Masafumi NAKANE <max@wide.ad.jp> wrote:

> My prefence is not to rely totally upon the HTTP content negotiation
> when users can choose from multiple languages/content types.  Even
> when the server supports the content negotiation and the document is
> provided in a way that can make use of the content negotiation
> mechanism, it would be better to have links pointing to different
> versions of the file.

Well, if you want yet another example, take a look at:

    http://www.w3.org/Press/1998/WAI-UAGL

Here, the Japanese version (WAI-UAGL.html.ja) uses three techniques
to indicate an alternative version (English version).  Those are:

  1. HTTP content negotiation

  2. a link to an alternate version of the document via LINK element, e.g.

       <LINK rel="Alternate" lang="en" hreflang="en"
           href="WAI-UAGL.html.en" title="English version">

  3. an explicit link to the English version, like

       <P>(also available in <A href="WAI-UAGL.html.en">English</A>)</P>

W3C's Web server DO support content negotiation, but I also provided
another ways to indicate the existence of an alternate version.  Apart
from content negotiation, I think "2" is better than "3", because
user agents that support such link type (e.g. Lynx) will typically
expose the link at the very start of the document, so users don't
have to look into the document further to search for a link for
an alternate version.

Regards,
-- 
Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org
W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
Received on Monday, 20 September 1999 04:10:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:00 GMT