- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 19:41:23 -0700
- 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> http://www.kynn.com/
Received on Thursday, 1 June 2000 22:45:49 UTC