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

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

From: Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 13:08:25 +0900
Message-ID: <dba6c0830905062108w7b95a63ai24b6a4e7967694b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
2009/5/7 Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>:
> On Wed, 6 May 2009, David Singer wrote:
>> At 3:55  -0400 6/05/09, Yves Lafon wrote:
>>>
>>> In fact if "?" is needed, our fragment syntax is just a hint, people
>>> owning their URIs can define whatever naming scheme they want, the main
>>> issue is finding the association between identification of useful ranges
>>> someone awnts to retrieve and URIs
>>
>> There is a very big difference between ? and #. "?" is an instruction to
>> the server;  a database query, for example.  It is part of the definition of
>> the resource.  # is an instruction to the user-agent, a focusing
>> instruction.
>
> The server can interpet is in the way it wants, it is usually linked to cgi
> or db query, but it doesn't have to be the case; but my point was that we
> can't mandate the structure of what goes after a '?' in a URI, while with
> the '#', as it is targeted to the client (as you said), and we want the
> client to behave in a defined way, then we have the right to mandate a
> specific syntax.

We can specify a negotiated request/response behaviour that is used
for a resource involving '?', and we can also specify a syntax for
clients to use to generate URIs for such servers, post-negotiation.

That we cannot mandate the behaviour for all clients and servers
simply means that we should provide useful fallbacks if either the
client or server behave as for a normal HTTP GET.

Conrad.
Received on Thursday, 7 May 2009 04:09:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:33 GMT