Wan 3.0 will take a document or a web page as the starting point for a video. The published limit is precise, and the precision is the interesting part:
One document up to 50 pages, or one public link. Not both.
Three separate constraints in one line — a count of one, a page ceiling of fifty, and a mutual exclusion — and each fails differently.
Most source material does not arrive as a single document. It arrives as a deck plus a spec plus a page of notes, or three chapters, or a report and the appendix it references. The model takes one, so somebody has to merge them, and that somebody is either your user or your code.
If it is your user, you have a support burden: they will attach the deck, get a video that ignores the appendix, and file a bug. If it is your code, you have a real decision about ordering, because concatenation order determines narrative order, and there is no parameter that says "the appendix is supporting material". Whatever you merge first is what the video opens with.
Neither answer is wrong. What is wrong is not deciding, because the default — take the first file and silently drop the rest — is the one failure mode users cannot see.
A hard page ceiling with no partial mode means a 60-page document has to lose 10 pages before it is sent, and you choose which 10. That choice is content strategy wearing an engineering hat.
Cutting the last ten is the obvious implementation and usually the wrong one — conclusions live at the end. Cutting appendices is better but requires knowing which pages are appendices. The honest option, and the one worth building first, is to tell the user it will not fit and let them choose, because any automatic answer will be wrong for some documents and silently so.
The URL path swaps a page limit for an access problem. A link the model cannot fetch is not a partial result, it is nothing: anything behind a login, an intranet, a cookie wall, or a region block simply is not readable. And the failure is confusing, because the user can see the page perfectly well in their own browser, where they are logged in.
That deserves a specific error message. "We could not read that page" is worth writing properly, because the reflexive user response to a generic failure is to retry the same URL.
You cannot send a document and a link in one request. As with reference material and first/last frames, this is a hard branch rather than a preference: your interface picks one input mode per request. The virtue of hard exclusions like this one is that they fail at validation instead of producing a plausible-but-wrong result — which, on a per-second-billed endpoint, is the cheap kind of failure.
The 50-page cap, the one-document limit, the public-link alternative and the exclusion between them are published parameters. They sit with everything else — the 2-to-30-second range, 30 fps, the three resolution tiers, and the four claims in circulation that no primary source supports — on the Wan 3.0 specification table.
Disclosure: this site is written by the people who run a third-party browser interface to this model. We are not affiliated with Alibaba or Alibaba Cloud.