- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 08:00:00 -0700
- To: "Bailey Bruce" <Bailey@access-board.gov>
- Cc: "Andi Snow-Weaver" <andisnow@us.ibm.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2007 15:00:27 UTC
One problem is that the user may not be able to tell what site an "opaque" URI is part of, hence how to find the site-specific search engine. So in the naked URI scenario, it may be necessary to fall back on a generic search engine. Loretta On 5/15/07, Bailey Bruce <Bailey@access-board.gov> wrote: > > > I do not quite follow this logic behind this concern. As the site owner > -- the entity claiming conformance -- do you not have control over the > search engine provided for your site? Ensuring that *your* search > engine *continues* to turn up your accessible versions would just be > part of the requirements as your search engine behavior was revised. > Why is this not something you could control? Or control at least as > well as other content that goes up *after* your initial conformance > claim. > >
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2007 15:00:27 UTC