Re: Updated "Referencing WAI Guidelines and Technical Documents"

Perhaps mention that this W3C naming scheme is new, and that legacy 
links are different, but people should change to this system now.

Perhaps it might be useful to mention that people do reference drafts of 
W3C Recommendations with the date in the URL and that these persist 
after the Recommendation has been approved. People shouldn't need to 
reference drafts but it does happen. This is another good reason to 
reference the overview page: it's valid even while the Recommendation is 
still a draft.

++The table "Example: Linking to WCAG"

The URI column could move the server name (www.w3.org/) to the column 
header to make it easier to spot the difference between the examples, so 
the rows would start with:

/WAI/intro/wcag
/TR/WCAG/
/TR/WCAG20/
/TR/WCAG10/
/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT

which (after a little thought) is easier to read than

www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag
www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/
www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/
www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT

The second column could move "For links to" into the header, so 
shortening the sentences below (with some rewriting).

Perhaps highlight key words in each cell ("latest version", "technical 
specification", "Version 2.0 ").

Perhaps swap the first two columns (URI and Use)? Or merge the "Use" and 
"Document linked to:" columns? They overlap, I think.

For the "Will the content at this URI change?" column I wonder about 
"fragments/targets/anchors may also change". IDs have been used in RDF 
as IDs for the WCAG 1.0 checkpoints (in content labels for example). I 
don't think that checkpoint or success criteria IDs should change.

I don't like URLs in "<>" angle brackets but don't know what to suggest 
as an alternative.


-- 
Alan Chuter
Departamento de Usabilidad y Accesibilidad
Consultor
Technosite - Grupo Fundosa
Fundación ONCE
Tfno.: 91 121 03 30
Fax: 91 375 70 51
achuter@technosite.es
http://www.technosite.es

Received on Friday, 6 March 2009 09:13:25 UTC