W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > October 2001

Re: .html? File Extensions Perhaps Not So Harmful

From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:44:08 -0600 (MDT)
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
cc: www-qa@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10110151137350.6819-100000@measurement-factory.com>
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001, Al Gilman wrote:

> If the protocol doesn't return a .svg from the server when the
> server has both and the client requests a .gif with an 'accept'
> heading that prefers .svg, then the protocol is broken.  The
> server should know when it has eqivalents for the .gif URI and
> what they are.  That's a basic accessibility requirement.  

One could argue that the accessibility requirement relying on a single
URI to represent two distinct resources is broken. IMO, a solution
that leaves HTTP alone [and simple] would be much cleaner. It is
probably too late for that, unfortunately.

Alex.
Received on Monday, 15 October 2001 13:44:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:28 UTC