W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > November 2006

Re: Re[4]: AW: Content negotiation flamewar (was: Re: "Hash URIs" and content negotiation)

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 02:26:06 +0100
Message-Id: <CC1B4B96-D20C-4AEE-AC13-971CBA2065D1@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
To: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>, Max Voelkel <voelkel@fzi.de>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>

Xiaoshu, Max, Dan,

I've managed, with your help, to get a somewhat coherent picture of  
what's going on with content negotiation and hash URIs. I've  
convinced myself that there is no problem if one is a little bit  
careful. The approach in the Vocabulary Recipes [1] is correct and  
makes sense.

A long writeup of how I think it all works is at [2]. Comments are  
welcome.

Cheers,
Richard

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/
[2] http://dowhatimean.net/2006/11/content-negotiation-with-hash-uris- 
long


On 14 Nov 2006, at 22:18, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:

> - Richard,
>
>>  From RFC 2854 [1]:
>>
>> | For documents labeled as text/html, the fragment identifier
>> designates
>> | the correspondingly named element; any element may be named
>> with the
>> | "id" attribute, and A, APPLET, FRAME, IFRAME, IMG and MAP
>> elements may
>> | be named with a "name" attribute.
>>
>> So, the frag id names an *element*, a structural part of the  
>> document.
>>
>> This increases my conviction that, if #Bob is a person, a 303
>> should be done before we serve HTML.
>
> The semantics you refered is the semantics of text/html but not the  
> HTTP
> protocol. As far as the HTTP protocol is concerned, the #Bob is never
> requested.  What is requested is the http://example.com/resource,  
> which is
> an information resource.  How to interpret the semantics of #Bob is  
> at the
> client side and it is not coverred by the httpRange-14.  If the agent
> "thinks" it has requested the http://example.com/resource#Bob, then  
> it is
> the wrong implementation of the agent that leads to the wrong  
> conclusion,
> but not the httpRange-14 resolution, don't you think?
>
> Xiaoshu
>
>
Received on Thursday, 16 November 2006 03:13:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:12 GMT