W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: QA questions about the modularized UAAG

From: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 19:01:19 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010510185113.04378510@pop.rcn.com>
To: "gregory j. rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
At 2001-05-10 14:31, gregory j. rosmaita wrote:
>aloha!
>...
>2. why are the filenames for UAAG and UAAG-TECHS identical?  if one attempts
>to unarchive the hypertext version of the modularized document into a single
>directory (such as C:\HTML\W3C\WAI\UA), one is forced to change the
>filenames in any case, so as to avoid (a) overwriting files with identical
>names and (b) wasting hard drive space through the
>replication of the contents of the sub-directories contained in the
>archives, which includes duplicate copies of all of the images used in the
>guidelines...  of course, if one changes the names of the files contained in
>the UAAG-TECHS archive, the links from UAAG to UAAG-TECHS all break...

As name-changing breaks links, and we have many links from UAAG10 to
UAAG10-Tech, and at least one back. So changing either name just to avoid
a name collision seems unnecessary.

I agree they should have different names, so that links from one to the other
can work in the same directory, without having to change the URLs in either
document.

They can share the URL references to common images and style sheets.

>would it not, therefore, be better to distinguish between UAAG and
>UAAG-TECHS rather than provide users with 2 archives containing identically
>named files with distinct content?
>
>UAAG filename: cover.html
>UAAG-TECHS filename: techs-cover.html (or cover-techs.html)
>
>UAAG filename: guidelines.html
>UAAG-TECHS filename: techs-guidelines.html (or guidelines-techs.html)
>
>etc.
>...
>
>gregory.


Regards/Harvey
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2001 19:01:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:50 GMT