Re: Linking to non HTML Resources (PDF) (Word doc) etc.

IMO you should do both here; I would show the name of the document in the
content and use css psuedo-element selectors to drop the format type after
the document title, in the link.

Tying the name to the product is less than ideal for the multitude of
formats that can be created by more than one program.
..DOC/X in OpenOffice and LibreOffice and Google Drive.
..PDF is an (export) option in countless apps/software across the
web/desktop that are not created with an Adobe license.
Not to mention, what of formats with no claim, like .PNG, .CSV?

Regardless of user knowledge, it's the spirit of the Open Web to support
the user, and as such, limiting information in this way does not benefit
the user.
Furthermore, I believe this approach is part of the foundation we've built
for digital literacy, and has impeded our growth.
Every US .gov site has the same format notes/tips around documents,
specifically naming some/all of these: Office, Word, Excel, Reader,
Acrobat, and WinZIP
for handling formats.
Whilst providing free advertising to vendors, gov is doing citizen users an
incredible disservice by not providing alternative paths.


J. Albert Bowden II

albert@bowdenweb.com
jalbertbowden@gmail.com
https://bowdenweb.com/ <http://bowdenweb.com/>



On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 8:08 PM Sean Murphy (seanmmur) <seanmmur@cisco.com>
wrote:

> The challenge is will the average person out there know the filename
> extensions? I would  think not. Thus my top of thoughts is to use the
> product name. Microsoft Word if this was the original source product which
> created the downloadable material. RTF and EPub   would fall in the same
> category as PDF.
>
>
>
> [image:
> https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/m/en_us/signaturetool/images/banners/standard/02_standard_ciscoblue02.png]
>
> *Sean Murphy*
>
> SR ENGINEER.SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
>
> seanmmur@cisco.com
>
> Tel: *+61 2 8446 7751*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cisco Systems, Inc.
>
> The Forum 201 Pacific Highway
>
> ST LEONARDS
>
> 2065
>
> Australia
>
> cisco.com
>
> [image: http://www.cisco.com/assets/swa/img/thinkbeforeyouprint.gif]
>
> Think before you print.
>
> This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole
> use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or
> authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by
> reply email and delete all copies of this message.
>
> Please click here
> <http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/legal/terms-sale-software-license-agreement/company-registration-information.html>
> for Company Registration Information.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrea Douglas <dougl361@umn.edu>
> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 January 2019 11:44 AM
> *To:* w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> *Subject:* Linking to non HTML Resources (PDF) (Word doc) etc.
>
>
>
> I’m looking for guidance on linking to non-HTML resources in web pages,
> for example, pdfs, Word docs, Excel docs. Specifically, is it better to
> link to the format name (Word) or (Word doc) or (doc) or (docx) ?
>
> It seems the link text for (pdf) is straightforward as it describes
> the_format_AND the file_extension_. However, other common links (Word,
> Excel, PowerPoint) the format (Word for example) is different from the file
> extension ( doc or docx for example).
>
>
>
> Feedback and thoughts are appreciated.
>
>
>
> For example:
>
> County Resource (pdf)
>
> County Resource (doc)
>
>
>