W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > September 2008

Re: Identifying vs Describing media URI fragments

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:57:21 -0400 (EDT)
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
cc: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0809240952320.23828@ubzre.j3.bet>

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:

> Ah! This is where the discussion becomes interesting! We are now
> talking about URI fragments and not media fragments. So we need to get
> our terminology and understanding right.

Yes, names and representations.

> I have had a long discussion about using "#" in URIs to identify media
> fragments with the URI WG. Everything that is specified in a URI
> fragment is only local to the client and cannot be transferred to the
> server. In fact, after my discussion, they fixed a bug in Apache where

In the URI yes, it can be sent via other means (custom header, Range 
request, etc...) if the client know how to convey the relevant information 
to the server.

> the fragment was sent and accepted by Apache. Apache now does not
> accept URI fragments any more. Therefore, if we want to use a URI
> mechanism to gain access to media fragments (i.e. subparts of media
> files), we have to use a different mechanism. That's why the
> temporalURI spec uses queries ("?") instead of fragments.

In that case you are creating new resources, and have an issue if you want 
to reconstruct the whole document.

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2008 13:57:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:30 GMT