- From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 09:01:31 +0200
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au> To: "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 6:14 AM Subject: RE: addition proposal, GL 4.2 I agree. Of course the entire idea of "linking to a plug-in" is frought with difficulties, as what one normally links to would have to be Web content such as a download site, unless the server can determine the operating system of the user agent. Roberto Scano: And what about removing the wording "plugin" with a sentence like: "when for render a content is required an additional application (or an application not defined inside baseline), user should be prompted to install it." Or find something that said "give to the user agent information about the type of content and the resource that can open it". But all depends from the type of plugin required: if we talk about content served via object element, we have possibility to set the source for the viewer but if - as in this original e-mail - the content is a document like "pdf", "rtf", etc. linked with an "a" element, these are user agent issues (if we want to be rigorous, we can ask to explain the type of content (as i've done for the different OPML/RSS/RDF documents). <a href="opml.xml" type="text/x-opml">OPML</a> <a href="/rss/comunicati.asp" type="application/rss+xml">RSS 2.0</a> <a href="/rdf/comunicati.asp" type="application/rdf+xml">RSS 1.0</a> In this mode we help the user agent to identify the type of content. This if for HTML: For other technologies? Roberto Scano --- IWA/HWG Member
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2005 07:32:03 UTC