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