W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > October to December 1999

Re: referencing W3C recs in the Techniques document

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 22:37:18 -0500
Message-ID: <383B5D6E.ABC14DC8@w3.org>
To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <unagi69@concentric.net>
CC: User Agent Guidelines Emailing List <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
"Gregory J. Rosmaita" wrote:
> 
> aloha, ian!
> 
> second, i'd like to re-raise an issue that would make the techniques documents
> a hell of a lot more usable...  why do all of the links that refer to specific
> attributes and elements defined in W3C recommendations lead only to a top-level
> link, located in the References section of the document, for the relevant
> recommendation?
> 
> case in point -- under the Accessibility Topic "Link Techniques", located at
> (long URI warning)
> http://www.w3.org/wai/ua/wai-useragent-techs-19991121#link-techniques
> appears the following technique:
> 
> quote
> Use :before from [CSS2] to clearly indicate that something is a link (e.g.,
> 'A:before { content : "LINK:" }')
> unquote
> 
> the bracketed term quote CSS2 unquote is a hyperlink that leads not to the CSS2
> description of the :before and :after pseudo-elements, as anyone reading the
> document for the first time might reasonably expect, but, leads instead to a
> link in the References section of the Techniques document, which points to the
> top-level URI for the CSS2 recommendation...  would it not be more logical and
> informative (not to mention more user-friendly) if the hyperlink pointed users
> to the pertinent portion of the CSS2 rec, which in this case would be:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512/generate.html#x2
> rather than leave the reader to fend for his or her self once he or she is
> dumped unceremoniously at the top level URI for the relevant rec?
> 
> i know that this would entail a considerable effort, and so i volunteer my
> services to assist in any such transformation,

I'll have to think about this one. I'm torn. For resources that
are stable (e.g., dated W3C Recommendations) it may not hurt. For
unstable resources, there is significant risk of links being
broken and we can't fix them once the document is published. 

I'll take an action item to talk this over in the Team. Also,
what do others in the WG think?

 _ Ian

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 1999 22:36:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:25 UTC