- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: 26 Sep 2003 16:05:24 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1064606723.1372.15.camel@seabright>
Hello,
The 18 September 2003 Editor's Draft of "Architecture of
the World Wide Web" is now available at:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030926/
Please note in particular the change to the abstract,
based on Roy's recent proposal and subsequent discussion
on the list.
Complete list of changes:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/changes#changes-20030926
HTML diff:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030926/diffs.html
Below is the list of comments I did not take into account
for this draft; I anticipate that the TAG will provide
direction at the 29 Sep teleconference.
Thank you,
_ Ian
==========================================================
Comments from Stuart
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0128.html
1) SW: Likes Roy's intro text. However, previous comments from
DC and TB point to issues they have with that text (e.g.,
not confined to spanning Internet, not limited to sources
and services, etc.).
Cf.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/0037
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/0046
See abstract proposed in 26 Sep draft.
2) Endnote 2 requires clarification. This is based on text
from Roy.
"User agent configurations are usually defined by URI scheme,
with exceptions defined by further substring matches within
the URI."
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jul/0079
3) Endnote three and use of other protocols than HTTP for
http URIs. Reference RFC 2396, section 1.2:
"Although many URL schemes are named after protocols, this
does not imply that the only way to access the URL's resource
is via the named protocol. Gateways, proxies, caches, and
name resolution services might be used to access some
resources, independent of the protocol of their origin, and
the resolution of some URL may require the use of more than
one protocol (e.g., both DNS and HTTP are typically used to
access an "http" URL's resource when it can't be found in a
local cache)."
Proposal: Added reference.
4) Cause/effect backwards in describing "link".
I must be missing a subtle point. I don't know how (in the
Web arch) to detect that two resources are linked until
a URI ref appears in a representation.
5) 2.4.1 Secondary Resources...
SW: "Knowledge of the media-type associated with a frag-id is
implicit in the account given here. This seems to be at odds
with the use of URI references as opaque identifiers as
typified in RDF/Semantic Web. ie. we only give an account here
of the use of fragment ids in relation to a representation with
a known media-type"
IJ: Does the following sentence which appears in the next
paragraph suffice?
"The presence of a fragment identifier agent in a URI does
not imply that a retrieval action will take place."
Or, from [URI]:
"As with any URI, use of a fragment identifier component does
not imply that a retrieval action will take place. A URI with
a fragment identifier may be used to refer to the secondary
resource without any implication that the primary resource is
accessible. However, if that URI is used in a context that
does call for retrieval and is not a same-document reference
(section 4.4), the fragment identifier is only valid as a
reference if a retrieval action on the primary resource
succeeds and results in a representation for which the
fragment identifier is meaningful."
6) "For schemes that do specify the use of fragment identifiers..."
SW: "It is not within the gift of a URI scheme to specify the
use/non-use of fragment identifiers. They are a part of the
generic URI syntax, and definition of the frag-id 'semantics'
is delegated to media-type specifications, not URI scheme
specifications."
IJ: I looked at a number of the URI scheme specs to see if
I could find any examples of a scheme spec talking about
whether frag ids are actually used in URIs for that scheme
(e.g., mailto). I found no such statements, so I am deleting
the sentence in question.
See also comments from TB about use of URI scheme spec
(comment 33 in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/0046)
7) Good Practice Note: Content Negotiation With Fragments.
SW: I prefer the wording of the Good practice note "Content
negotiation with fragments" from the current TR page draft:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20030627/#http-conneg-frag
8) 2.5.2
SW: Step 5&6 refer to "Content-type field": s/field/header/
Looking at RFC2616, I find, for example in 9.2:
"If the OPTIONS request includes an entity-body (as
indicated by the presence of Content-Length or
Transfer-Encoding), then the media type MUST be indicated by
a Content-Type field."
No change.
9) 2.6 Persistence and Ambiguity
No text proposed; no change.
10) 4.5 Binary and Textual Data Formats
SW: "I wonder if some of the current discussion re text/*+xml
and application/*+xml should be reflected here. The bias in 4.5
is to promote XML as textual data format, so perhaps some
careful words are in order around the TAG disposition wrt
text/*+xml. Maybe a forward reference to 4.10.6 would cover
some of this."
There is a forward ref in first sentence. Not sure what else
to add before more discussion in TAG.
==================================
Comments from Norm
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0110.html
11) Present table of notes after TOC as three lists.
12) Choose a different icon (smaller) to indicate story.
Roy seems to concur.
13) 1.1 feels out of place.
14) Section 2.4.1, fourth bullet of first bulleted list:
NW: s/is "U#fragid"./is "U#fragid" when the resource retrieved
is in format "F"./
IJ: I don't see why retrieval is required.
15) 2.5.2
NW: Delete "Remember that search engines may follow such links."
IJ: I think this reminder is helpful.
==================================
Comments from Norm
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0116.html
16) Section 2.6:
a) Doesn't like ambiguity example; too linked to httpRange-14.
b) Moby Dick example unclear, "beached".
==================================
Comments from David
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0117.html
17) Definitions of terms and diagram illustrating their
relationships.
IJ: I would like to have a series of diagrams that progress
from simple to more complete. I am not sure that all relationships
should appear in the same diagram.
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Friday, 26 September 2003 16:05:29 UTC