- From: Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:51:05 +0100
- To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> When the web page author needs to link to an application file like pdf > or doc, how should it open? I keep changing my mind about what I think is best here. I'm commenting on your arguments, rather than the original question. > 1) If a web page author links to a pdf file, the link will open Acrobat > Reader inside the browser in IE and Mozilla, but in Opera the Open/Save > dialog opens, which I prefer. You can still save in IE and Mozilla. > 3) If search engines like Google should index pdf-files, probably based > on link text and filename only (?), the pdf file must look like a file > with the pdf extension that will normally open the application inside > the browser in IE and Mozilla. Google doesn't go by filename (though you can filter searches based on file extension). File extensions on URIs are a bad idea, though it is of course convenient to make a bit of URI space mirror a directory full of files. Really they aren't file extensions at all, they just look like them same. > 4) In my new article, "The logo should not be a link back to the > homepage", www.smackthemouse.com/20040719, I use the pdf extension > (footnote in article), but I rewrite the url server-side and use the > http header to force the open/save dialog in all the three mentioned > browsers. I do similar things so that I *don't* have extensions in the URI. They are pointless at best. > What are you doing to make the use of application files, like pdf and > doc, the most accessible and usable? Avoiding using them at all, if I can help it. -- Jon Hanna <http://www.hackcraft.net/> "…if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably not a ConceptualWork about a duck." - Mark Baker
Received on Tuesday, 20 July 2004 10:51:07 UTC