- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:16:25 -0500
- To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, <dbooth@hp.com>
At 05:46 PM 1/10/2006 +0000, Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote: >David Booth suggests in point E2 [1] that for each recipe we should describe what the URIs actually return. I'd been wanting to find some way of illustrating that graphically anyway, so I added some images to recipes 1-5 illustrating the results of each configuration (see rev. 1.13 of [2]). What do you think? Well, the images are pretty but the actual graphical part doesn't convey any new information. That's convenient from an accessibility perspective (no need for a longdesc version of each graphic) but it begs the question of whether there is something more useful to communicate. Possibilities that come to mind are: 1. different icons for application/rdf+xml response vs. text/html response 2. unique icon for 303 response (do we want to describe anywhere what we expect a client to do with the Location from the 303 response? I.e. use it in another GET)
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2006 02:17:04 UTC