- From: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
- Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 00:17:34 +0100
- To: public-lod@w3.org
On 2014-12-22 13:04, Steffen Lohmann wrote: > On 21.12.2014 04:11, Melvin Carvalho wrote: >> I would normally expect a ? in the query string however, rather than, >> # which I presume is the 1337 way to hide the ontology from the server. > > Good point. We discuss it and maybe change to the query identifier (?) > instead of the fragment identifier (#) in the next version of WebVOWL. Melvin makes a good point, but I don't think he was necessarily suggesting that you should change the call. If you only intended your application to trigger the IRI retrieval process via JavaScript (and not letting it hit the server), switching to query string is irrelevant. Difference being that it will then hit the server with no practical purpose. However, using the fragment on the other hand implies that the IRI that follows the # is part of the document. If we look at the HTML source, that is not the case, and presumably not the case if the base URL returns an RDF representation either. I would suggest that, either use ? and let the server trigger everything (which is IMO the right thing to do here, and with simpler/better caching possibilities), or stick to # and let JavaScript manage it all (as is now). -Sarven http://csarven.ca/#i
Received on Monday, 22 December 2014 23:18:09 UTC