W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2004

RE: Meaning and scope of "authored unit"

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:41:07 +1000
Message-ID: <16644.50083.307490.615304@jdc.local>
To: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Gregg Vanderheiden writes:
 > 
 > 
 > Jason wrote
 > I disagree here. Suppose I set up my server so that failure to
 > negotiate results in an error response.
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > Gregg
 > Well, if the error response is accessible it would comply since that would
 > be the version of content that is presented if there is no negotiation. 
 > 
I thought of that, but to say a protocol error counts as "content" is
really stretching usage quite considerably, and would have to be made
explicit somewhere. On the other hand it does satisfy all requirements
for being machine interpretable and would otherwise satisfy the
guidelines; but I think most people would think that a protocol error
is not an example, even a trivial one, of Web content.

Thus we either clarify somewhere that this is admitted or reword the
requirement to cover the case where there is no default version of the
content.
Received on Monday, 26 July 2004 04:41:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:58 UTC