W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: Same URI? [was: Re: BIG ISSUES]

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 17:33:45 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "GLWAI Guidelines WG \(GL - WAI Guidelines WG\)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Al and Sean,

         Thanks muchly for the help.

         May I suggest that URI be used sparingly if at all in the 
guidelines, or perhaps used as "URI/URL" so that the non-geeks will 
understand what is being said. The audience for the guidelines includes the 
development community, but goes way past it.... to the non-geek development 
community <grin> ...

         I would also like to see other common word usages incorporated in 
an effort to simplify the language to reach a wider audience than the 
"geek" web development community. In the non-geek web savvy world, it's a 
URL .... it the non-geek web savvy world, it is a web page, not a document 
.... and in the non-geek web savvy world, the opening page of a site (or 
root URL) is the Home Page .... I'd favor use of the non-geek words as much 
as possible with links to the geek-world words in a glossary....


At 03:38 PM 9/21/01 -0400, Al Gilman wrote:
>At 08:07 PM 2001-09-20 , Anne Pemberton wrote:
> >
> >         I'm a bit unclear on the meaning of the acronym URI ... I
> >originally assumed it meant URL, but have seen it used such that it
> >suggests it may be the web site rather than the specific page address that
> >can contain any equivalent versions ... This was under Elephant #11 ... and
> >if it means that a URI is a web site (an address and it's subdirectories,
> >etal) it will neatly suit meeting the needs of all disabled persons without
> >having to draw a line anywhere ....
> >
>Let's go to the latest rehash of the consensed items.  I believe that the one
>you are referring to is
>S1 - serving content in different forms is an acceptable way to comply
>with the guidelines as long as equivalents for all of the information
>are provided in the different forms and it is all available through the
>same URI  (though it may be linked to it)  (server side solutions are
>acceptable  as specified)
>Here the extension to "somewhere on the same site" is by the parenthetical
>remark "though it may be linked to it."
>I had been interpreting the "from the same URI" in a strict sense and was
>preparing to object until this parenthetical remark sunk in.  There is a
>technique known as content negotiation in which a URL can get you different
>things depending on what you have set in your Accept: headers.  This give
>transparent access to alternatives.
>The point is that this level of transparency is not meant to be _required_ by
>the consensus, at least the way I read the way Gregg wrote it up.  If the
>alternative is not immediately at the same URL by transparent content
>negotiation, it is still conforming if the alternatives are easy to discover
>and navigate to, starting at that URL.  This implies that a root, home, or
>entry page where people are likeliest to start should be very broadly
>usable so
>that people can find their way from there to the section that is best for
>It's not quite true that being elsewhere on the same site is enough.  You have
>to have web-linked the site together enough, too.  But so long as the path to
>what you want is via well-greased skids through stuff you can use, then it's
>On the technicalities, a URL is a URI, and saying 'a URI' doesn't somehow
>expand the reference to include the whole site.  There is no
><http://www.foo.bar/>http://www.foo.bar/* way to refer to the whole site as a
>We should have a FAQ on "why do all the web specifications say URIs and all
>pages contain URLs?"

Anne Pemberton

Received on Friday, 21 September 2001 17:49:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:39 UTC