W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > May 2009

Re: Description of the 2-ways and the 4-ways handshake

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 09:44:25 -0700
Message-Id: <p06240873c620d6d96a78@[]>
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
At 12:31  +0200 29/04/09, RaphaŽl Troncy wrote:
>Silvia, Michael
>Indeed, we haven't scribed a formal RESOLUTION 
>regarding this choice as far as I remember, but 
>we agree on that during the Ghent face to face 
>meeting, as the minutes let that suppose. 
>have captured the decision.
>>We never really captured the decision that was made for choosing "#"
>>as the fragment identifying mechanism over "?". I think we will need a
>>brief discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of these two
>>approaches in the WD and an explanation of when to choose what. This
>>needs to be more than the one sentence written in 6.1.
>Absolutely! More precisely, we need to specify 
>what's happened if the 'segment' is obtained 
>with a hash ('#') or a question mark ('?') since 
>out grammar is now flexible.
>   - In the case of the '#': the single or dual 
>step partial GET as described currently

I think, rather
? -- it is the server's syntax and task to do the selection
# -- it is the MIME type's syntax and UA's task 
to do the selection, possibly assisted by an 
enhanced protocol with the server

That is, if the UA is asked to focus the user's 
attention on a certain portion of the resource, 
it should do the best it can
a) to do said focusing
b) to use the network and server wisely

If the protocol is HTTP-1.1-enhanced, then there 
may be new commands or headers it can use.  In 
the lack of that (e.g. HTTP 1.1 or even 1.0) it 
does the best it can.

>   - In the case of the '?': the normal behavior, 
>it is a new resource that will be completely 
>served with a 200 OK response code. The only 
>extra specification we may add is a link header 
>to point towards the original resource the 
>segment comes from ...
>I suggest to write that down in the next iteration of the WD :-)
>   RaphaŽl
>RaphaŽl Troncy
>CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science),
>Science Park 123, 1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands
>e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
>Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093
>Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312
>Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/

David Singer
Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 1 May 2009 16:45:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:42 UTC