Re: While it is still fresh in our minds: '!' is not just a funny fragment identifier...

> On 22 Dec 2015, at 07:47, AUDRAIN LUC <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr> wrote:
> 
> Snippet : if I request http://www.example.org/A!B <http://www.example.org/A!B> then the server is supposed to deliver http://www.example.org/A!B <http://www.example.org/A!B> to the client
> This means that A¡B as a sub-resource can be served by the server. Depending on the kind of resource, it may not « naturally »  exists .
> 
> If it’s a specific position in an audio or vidéo file, it may be fine in streaming, but as a position in text, can the server send this specific portion of text without sending the beginning of the HTML file?

I am not sure I 100% understand the question.

By default, http://www.example.org/A!B <http://www.example.org/A!B> and http://www.example.org/A <http://www.example.org/A> are two completely different resources, not unlike http://www.example.org/A <http://www.example.org/A> is completely different from http://www.example.org/C <http://www.example.org/C>. Of course, the server can implement some tricks whereby the '!' character is interpreted in a particular way, but that is really a matter of server setup/programming/whatever. The '!' character is nothing special, afaik.

But I am not sure I answered your question…

Ivan



> 
> 
> De : Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com <mailto:shane@aptest.com>>
> Date : mardi 22 décembre 2015 03:10
> À : Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>>
> Cc : Romain Deltour <rdeltour@gmail.com <mailto:rdeltour@gmail.com>>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>>, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com <mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>>, Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com <mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org <mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>
> Objet : Re: While it is still fresh in our minds: '!' is not just a funny fragment identifier...
> Renvoyer - De : <public-digipub-ig@w3.org <mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>
> Renvoyer - Date : mardi 22 décembre 2015 03:11
> 
> I am personally wary of any use of '#' in a URL, even if it is in a different scheme.  While it would be perfectly legitimate to define and register a new scheme that has difference semantics for '#', it would be potentially confusing for developers.  I am sure there is some other separator you could use if you really want to identify a sub-resource.  Heck, you could even make it part of a query string.
> 
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote:
>> I would also add that it would be extremely valuable that any such fragment idents for PWP be format agnostic, since we are already seeing that EPUB is but a single profile of PWP and that there may be others – and these idents need to work for all.
>> 
>> Leonard
>>   <>
>> From: Romain Deltour [mailto:rdeltour@gmail.com <mailto:rdeltour@gmail.com>]
>> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 1:17 PM
>> To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>>
>> Cc: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com <mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>>; Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com <mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>>; W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org <mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>
>> Subject: Re: While it is still fresh in our minds: '!' is not just a funny fragment identifier...
>> 
>> 
>>> This is a major difference that we should not forget about.
>> 
>> Absolutely, right.
>> 
>> I was more thinking in terms of spec work:  we should not try to (re)invent the wheel and touch fragment IDs where they're already well-defined (like HTML), but on the other hand, for new media types (for instance a JSON PWP manifest?) we have new grounds to explore and it may be relevant to consider at a fragment identifier-based approach (which is, as you correctly point out, technically different from a custom-URL-separator-based approach).
>> 
>> Romain.
>> 
>>> On 21 Dec 2015, at 18:21, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> This came up today, I think maybe Romain mentioned it: that the '!' approach for content URL looks very much like a fragment ID, so why do we make a differentiation? (But I may have misunderstood the remark, in which case my apologies!)
>>> 
>>> There is one aspect that we should not forget about where '!' and '#' are very different. Per HTTP the fragment identifier is resolved, and acted upon, on the client side. Ie, the approach is that if I request
>>> 
>>> http://www.example.org/A#B <http://www.example.org/A#B>
>>> 
>>> then the GET request will deliver the http://www.example.org/A <http://www.example.org/A> as a whole to the client, which will then select, in a second step, B out of A.
>>> 
>>> However, a '!' is a bona fide part of a URI. Ie, if I request
>>> 
>>> http://www.example.org/A!B <http://www.example.org/A!B>
>>> 
>>> then the server is supposed to deliver http://www.example.org/A!B <http://www.example.org/A!B> to the client, not http://www.example.org/A <http://www.example.org/A> (whatever that is).
>>> 
>>> This is a major difference that we should not forget about.
>>> 
>>> Happy holidays and lots of rest to all of you/us!
>>> 
>>> Ivan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----
>>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>>> Digital Publishing Lead
>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/>
>>> mobile: +31-641044153 <tel:%2B31-641044153>
>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Shane McCarron
> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704