- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 22:29:51 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 05:39 PM 2000-06-01 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote: >At 6:15 PM -0400 6/1/00, Bruce Bailey wrote: >>Or is this a general design issue, and therefore not in the domain of the >>WCAG? "Use sensible file names for your HTML documents" is not in the WCAG >>either. Can anyone point me to a reference (with face validity) that >>includes such basics? > >Using sensible file names is not a requirement nor should it be. >The URI scheme is not meant to convey information or data -- it is >meant to be an almost-entirely arbitrary system (once past the >protocol and hostname identifiers) that associate arbitrary content >with a unique identifier. There is no requirement that the >unique identifier be human readable, human readable, human >parsable, or convey any information at all apart from uniqueness. > If these objects (the files) were always accessed by clicking on links, we could say that safely. But that is not true. Mnemonic file names are valuable because the resource is accessed through the local file system as well as through URIs. And a basic requirement on URIs is that they be able to pass via a cocktail napkin to the "go to location" manual input of the broser User Interface. Read the RFC. Al >-- >-- >Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> >http://www.kynn.com/ >
Received on Thursday, 1 June 2000 22:16:13 UTC