- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:40:14 -0700 (MST)
- To: www-qa@w3.org
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Karl Dubost wrote: > QA Activity has published two W3C Notes: CHIPs and CUAP There are several CHIPs checkpoints that talk about visual formatting of URIs. It surprises me that QA WG (or anybody) still cares how URIs look. The whole "use meaningless but easy to remember URIs" rhetoric seems to lack real-world foundation. While cool URIs may not change, cool interfaces do not force users to type URIs and, hence, it is not that important how those URIs "look". Cool interfaces use other means like page titles and links to present resource pointers to users, and computers do not care how URIs look as long as the URI "works". Document <title>s are for humans, URIs are for computers. With the exception of domain names (which are not even URIs), how many users still have to type URIs by hand? Bookmarks and links of various kinds make that awkward and unnecessary. Moreover, isn't it a violation of Web Accessibility guidelines to talk about specific visual appearance of URIs without talking about how URIs should sound, for example? Without much hope, I would suggest that arbitrary requirements related to URIs "look" are removed. Alex. -- | HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite | all of the above - PolyBox appliance
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 16:40:15 UTC