W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2000

RE: Anchor Names -- a P4 item?

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 19:41:23 -0700
Message-Id: <a0431010cb55ccc9e4c4f@[]>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 10:29 PM -0500 6/1/00, Al Gilman wrote:
>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.

No, this is not always true either.  It's very common to have a URI
scheme on a site that has no consistent relationship to the local
file system -- and with increasing use of database-backed web sites,
this trend will continue.  In many cases, there may not be a file
system at all!  The URI, however, may look much like a file system
in a way that is opaque to the site user (but not the site programmer).

>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.

Yes, I'm familiar with that scenario in the RFC, but that's not what's
being discussed here -- transcribability simply means that the URI can
be written down on paper and reproduced in the browser location
window, it doesn't require that the URI _make sense_ to any arbitrary
set of users.  There's no requirement in the RFC that URIs contain
human-readable content.
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
Received on Thursday, 1 June 2000 22:45:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:35:56 UTC