Re: linking to binary URLs

to follow up on what Jason White said:

> I agree that it would be advisable to use the TYPE attribute in this case,
> but the basic guideline should still recommend that non-W3C technologies
> be avoided, as there will necessarily be one or more user agents that do
> not support it. Needless to say, if such file formats are used, standard
> alternatives need to be provided.

What is the W3C recommendation for a sound file?  I am concerned
that this demand is not reasonable.  A sound file is much more
easy to listen to than text-to-speech from a transcript.  The W3C
just does not have an adequate complement of technologies that
are "W3C products" to expect people to limit themselves to these.

> I also encountered a page recently which required client-side
> Javascript functionality in order for any of the links to be
> activated. This kind of design needs to be avoided also.

Yes.  We need to make it crystal clear that this is not cool.
I would suggest that the way to state this is in a rewrite of
Daniel's "text is king" idea:

Key requirement (navigability):

Orientation to a web presence and navigation through and within
it must work substantially as well with images and scripts turned
off as with full multimedia and dynamic features turned on.  This
implies that all information necessary for orientation and
navigation must be available in the static hypertext [today,
HTML] of the site, using the elements and attributes defined in
W3C recommendations in the way discussed in this document.

Rewrite this in Plain English and it belongs in the Executive
Summary  of the Recommendation.

Note: static here means as received at the UA.  This does not
mean that the HTML cannot be generated by a server-side script.

Al

PS: draw analogy to elevators and fire stairs.  Tall buildings
still _must have_ the stairs, even 'though most traffic uses the
elevators.

Received on Monday, 26 October 1998 10:44:03 UTC