W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Fw: Re: CONSISTIENT ID, MULTIPLE WAYS, & LINK PURPOSE (2.4.4), ON FOCUS, AND ONINPUT

From: Chris Reeve <chrisreeve15@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 17:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <964124.54869.qm@web46105.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
To: forums@david-woolley.me.uk
Cc: Richard_Userite <richard@userite.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
David and Richard, are you forgetting that the target link already has the information in place. Since the target link already has this in place, why should I be held responsible to revise my text link since there are no downloable documents on my own site.?

--- On Wed, 8/5/09, David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk> wrote:


From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: CONSISTIENT ID, MULTIPLE WAYS, & LINK PURPOSE (2.4.4), ON FOCUS, AND ONINPUT
To: "Chris Reeve" <chrisreeve15@yahoo.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2009, 9:32 PM


Chris Reeve wrote:
> 

>     Why do I need to post the full link with the type of file since it
>     is not my document and not on my server?

Which server it is on is a technical detail of the addressing structure and not really relevant to the concepts behind the web.  In fact, the key thing that makes the web different from earlier hypertext is that cross-server links are treated the same as within document links (apart from some short hand - relative URLs - in the addressing).

Reply-To: set


-- David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 00:40:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:32 GMT