W3C

Comments by GK are indicated thus

Architectural Principles of the World Wide Web

W3C Working Draft 30 August 2002

This version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-webarch-20020830/
Latest version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/
Editor:
Ian Jacobs, W3C
Authors:
See acknowledgments.

Abstract

The World Wide Web is a networked information system. Web Architecture is the set of principles that all agents in the system follow to create the large-scale effect of a shared information space. Identification, data formats, and protocols are the main technical components of Web Architecture, but the large-scale effect depends on social behavior as well.

This document strives to establish a reference set of principles for Web architecture.

Status of this document

This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. The latest status of this document series is maintained at the W3C.

This is the first public Working Draft of "Architectural Principles of the World Wide Web." This document has been developed by W3C's Technical Architecture Group (TAG) (charter).

This draft represents substantial input from TAG participants, but does not yet represent consensus. It is also incomplete; sections 1 and 2 are the most developed, 3 and 4 the least. The TAG has published a number of findings that address specific architecture issues. Parts of those findings may appear in subsequent drafts. Please also consult the list of issues under consideration by the TAG.

Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than "work in progress."

The latest information regarding patent disclosures related to this document is available on the Web. As of this publication, there are no disclosures.

Please send comments on this document to the public W3C TAG mailing list www-tag@w3.org (archive).

A list of current W3C Recommendations and other technical documents can be found at the W3C Web site.

Table of Contents


1. Introduction

The World Wide Web (or, Web) is a networked information system consisting of agents (programs acting on behalf of another person, entity, or process) that exchange information.

The term "agents" seems odd here - at this point in the document, why not just "...consisting of programs that exchange information"?

This architecture consists of:

"consists of" seems very closed, and makes the architecture seem rather tangible; maybe "employs the following building blocks"?

  1. Identifiers. A single specification to identify objects in the system: the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) [RFC2396]. This seems to imply that RFC2396 actually does the identifying. Suggest: "A single form of identifier for objects ...".
  2. Formats. A nonexclusive set of data format specifications designed for interchange between agents in the system. This includes several data formats used in isolation Is anything truly "in isolation" on the web? Suggest: "separately" or in combination (e.g., XHTML, CSS, PNG, XLink, RDF, SMIL animation), as well as technologies for designing "technologies for constructing"? new data formats (XML, XML Namespaces).
  3. Protocols. A small and nonexclusive set of protocol specifications for interchanging information between agents, including HTTP [RFC2616], SMTP, and others. Several of these protocols share a reliance on the Internet Media Type (or, "MIME") the metadata/packaging system [RFC2046].

Wording of the final point above seems to confuse MIME content-types with the MIME encapsulation format. The phrase "Internet Media Type" is not one I'm aware is commonly used, though the intent is clear enough. I suggest mentioning the MIME content-types in the second point (e.g. "These data formats are identified using MIME content-type values [RFC2045]"). Then in the third point: "... share a reliance on the MIME metadata/packaging system [RFC2045] [RFC2046]". Also, note RFC2045 is usually cited as the primary MIME reference. RFC2046 describes some of the MIME media types and some common content types.

1.1. Structure and conventions of this document

After this introduction, sections two, three, and four discuss identifiers, formats, and protocols, respectively. Each section highlights principles of Web architecture and notes on good practice. These principles and good practice notes are summarized at the end of the introduction.

The terms MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, and MAY are used in accordance with RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Some issues and editorial notes are indicated.

1.2. Audience of this document

The intended audience for this document includes:

  1. Participants in W3C groups,
  2. Other groups and individuals developing technologies to be integrated into the Web.

The authors have made every effort to keep this document terse, with the expectation that additional documents will elaborate on the principles.

1.3. Limits of this document

This document focuses on architectural principles specific to or fundamental to the Web. It does not address general principles of design, which are also important to the success of the Web. Indeed, behind many of the principles of Web Architecture lie these and other principles such as minimal constraint (fewer rules makes the system more flexible), modularity, minimum redundancy, extensibility, simplicity, and robustness.

This document does not address architectural design goals covered by targeted W3C specifications:

  1. Internationalization; see W3C's Internationalization Activity.
  2. Accessibility; see W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative.
  3. Device independence; see W3C's Device Independence Activity.

Some of these principles may conflict with current practice, and so education and outreach will be required to improve on that practice. Other principles may fill in gaps in published specifications or may call attention to known weaknesses in those specifications.

1.4. Summary of principles

In the design of the Web, some design decisions, like the names the <p> and <li> elements in HTML, or the choice of the colon character in URIs, are somewhat arbitrary; if <par>, <elt>, or * had been chosen instead, the large-scale result would, most likely, have been the same. Other design choices are more critical "more fundamental"?; these are the architectural principles of the Web:

1. Use absolute URI references:
All important resources SHOULD be identified by an absolute URI reference. Hmmm... doesn't this confuse the identifier/reference distinction that TimBL mentioned recently? [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Sep/0043.html]
2. Absolute URI references are unambiguous:
Each absolute URI reference unambiguously identifies one resource. Ditto... I see this is pretty pervasive; I won't mention it again.
3. Describe resources:
Owners of important resources (for example, Internet protocol parameters) SHOULD make available representations that describe the nature and purpose of those resources. Is this a principle or a good practice?
4. Representation retrieval is safe:
Agents do not incur obligations by retrieving a representation.
5. Be aware of context-sensitivity in absolute URI references:
Owners and users of absolute URI references SHOULD ensure that any context-sensitivity of these identifiers is appropriate.
6. Use consistent representations:
There is a strong expectation of consistency between the representations of a resource; to the extent possible, representations SHOULD be equivalent. Hmmm... I'm bothered by the term "equivalent" here, even as qualified. To the extent that any representation is a "projection" of the thing it represents, equivalent seems too strong. I'd suggest something like "about the same thing".
7. Support persistence:
Those who create and manage resources and their identifiers SHOULD design the identifiers in such a way as to ensure their persistence. Referring back to the description of the architecture in section 1, this doesn't seem to be a part of the "architecture". I'd see this as a good practice. Also, this begs what is meant here by "persistence" -- many web publishers will not have the means to ensure persistence, but may still be able to allocate identifiers in a way that avoids or discourages re-use for a different purpose. (I see this is touched upon later.)
8. Avoid unnecessary new URI schemes:
Authors of specifications SHOULD avoid introducing new URI schemes when existing schemes can be used to meet the goals of the specifications.
9. Do not use unregistered URI schemes:
Unregistered URI schemes MUST NOT be used on the public Internet.

1.5. Summary of good practice notes

This document suggests the following good practice:

1. Do not rely on URI case insensitivity:
It SHOULD NOT be assumed that URIs which differ only in character case can be used interchangeably. Isn't this a MUST NOT? Isn't this a principle?
2. Be aware of content negotiation and fragment semantics:
Authors SHOULD NOT use HTTP content negotiation for different media types that do not share the same fragment identifier semantics.

2. Identifiers and resources

I'd like to see TimBLs discussion of identifiers and references incorporated in this section [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Sep/0043.html].

The Web is a universe of resources. A resource is defined by [RFC2396] to be anything that has identity. Examples include documents, files, menu items, machines, and services, as well as people, organizations, and concepts. Web architecture starts with a uniform syntax for resource identifiers, so that we can refer to resources, access them, describe them, and share them. The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) syntax employs an extensible set of URI schemes. Several URI schemes incorporate into this syntax some identification mechanisms that pre-date the Web:

Other URI schemes have been introduced since the advent of the Web, including those introduced as a consequence of new protocols. Examples of URIs for these schemes include:

One can append a fragment identifier to a URI to yield an identifier for part of, or a view of, a resource:

Note that while this composition is syntactically fully general, it is meaningless in some URI schemes. The absolute URI reference mailto:nobody@example.org#abc is meaningless in practice.

The syntax of URIs and absolute URI references is defined in [RFC2396]. In brief:

URIs and absolute URI references identify Web resources. The principles in this document are expressed in terms of absolute URI references.

Note: The current URI specification [RFC2396] defines a URI reference to be either an absolute URI reference or a relative URI reference. The syntax for a relative URI reference is a shortened form of that for an absolute URI reference, where some prefix of the URI is missing and certain path components ("." and "..") have a special meaning when, and only when, interpreting a relative path. For example, in a document whose base URI is http://example/dir1/dir2/file1, the relative URI reference ../file2 is a shortened form of http://example/dir1/file2 and the relative URI reference #abc is a shortened form for http://example/dir1/dir2/file1#abc.

Editor's note: While people agree that URIs identify resources (per [RFC2396]), there is not yet consensus that absolute URI references with fragment identifies may be used to identify resources. Some people contend that an absolute URI reference with a fragment identifier identifies a portion of a representation.

2.1. Resources, URIs, and the shared information space

When one resource refers to another via an absolute URI reference, a link is formed. When many resources are linked this way, the large-scale effect is a shared information space, addressable by absolute URI reference. The value of the Web increases with the number of resources addressable by absolute URI reference. In turn, resources are more valuable when they are addressable in the Web. Hence:

Use absolute URI references: All important resources SHOULD be identified by an absolute URI reference.1

There are many benefits to making resources addressable by absolute URI reference. Some are by design (e.g., linking and bookmarking), while others are serendipitous (e.g., global search services). See the TAG finding URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP GET for some details about the interaction of this principle in HTTP application design.

2.2. Operations on absolute URI references

The two primary operations on absolute URI references are:

  1. Comparison of identifiers
  2. Interaction with resources

2.2.1. Comparison of identifiers

There may be applications (e.g., XML namespace names [XMLNS]) where comparison is expected to be the sole or primary operation on an absolute URI reference. Certain URI schemes provide rules for determining the syntactic equivalence of absolute URI references, i.e., whether two absolute URI references are different spellings of the same identifier. These rules vary from scheme to scheme.

For example, URNs begin with two colon-delimited fields, the first of which is the string urn and the second identifies the subclass of URN, for example urn:ietf:example. In URNs, these two fields are to be compared in a case-insensitive fashion. The remainder of the URN following the second colon is subject to rules dependent on the content of the second field (following the first colon) - thus the equivalence rules may vary within URN namespace identifiers.

Section 3.2.3 of the HTTP specification [RFC2616] states that, when comparing two HTTP URIs, the host name part must be considered case-insensitive, so http://WWW.EXAMPLE/ and http://www.example/ identify the same resource.

Good practice note. Do not rely on URI case insensitivity: It SHOULD NOT be assumed that URIs which differ only in character case can be used interchangeably. MUST NOT?

Note: Equivalence of URIs is not the same as consistent representations of a resource.

Issue: URIEquivalence-15: When are two URI variants considered equivalent?

2.2.2. Interactions with resources

To dereference an absolute URI reference is to interact with the resource it identifies. One interacts with a resource by the exchange of representations of resource state. A resource is an abstraction for which there is a conceptual mapping to a (possibly empty) set of representations. Representations, when transferred by a Web protocol, are often accompanied by metadata, usually based on [RFC2046]. RFC2046 defines some specific MIME content types: do you mean metadata in this limited sense, or the more general sense of (say) Content-language? I think RFC2045 may be a more appropriate citation here. In particular, the value of the media type metadata value is key to the correct interpretation of a resource representation, and entirely governs the handling of fragment identifiers. The term "media type" is sometimes used to indicate only part of the MIME content type; e.g. the "text" of "text/plain"; I suggest "content type".

For instance, suppose the URI http://weather.yahoo.com/forecast/MXOA0069 identifies a resource that is "the weather forecast for Oaxaca, Mexico". A representation retrieved by means of that URI may be encoded in any number of formats, including HTML, XHTML, and SVG; see section 2 for more information about formats.

Interaction with a resource is governed by successive application of a finite set of specifications, beginning with the specification that governs the scheme of the URI. For example, suppose the absolute URI reference for the weather forecast is used within an a element of an SVG document. The sequence of specifications applied is:

  1. The URI specification [RFC2396]. This specification says (in section 3.1) that the scheme "define the semantics for the remainder of the URI string." In this case, the URI scheme is HTTP.
  2. The HTTP/1.1 protocol. Section 3.2.2 of RFC2616 [RFC2616] explains the semantics of HTTP URIs.
  3. The SVG 1.0 Recommendation [SVG10], which imports the link semantics defined by XLink 1.0 [XLink10]. Section 17.4 of the SVG specification suggests that interaction with an a link involves retrieving a representation a resource, identified by the XLink href attribute: "By activating these links (by clicking with the mouse, through keyboard input, and voice commands), users may visit these resources." This means that the GET method defined in HTTP/1.1 is used to retrieve the representation of the resource.
  4. Once the representation has been retrieved, the media type of the representation governs its interpretation (here, for rendering).

It is important for the correct functioning of the Web that the mapping between URIs and resources be unambiguous.

Absolute URI references are unambiguous: Each absolute URI reference unambiguously identifies one resource.

There may be several ways to interact with a resource. One of the most important operations for the Web is to retrieve a representation of a resource (such as with HTTP GET), which means to retrieve an snapshot of a state of the resource. There are other ways to interact with a resource (such as with HTTP POST). Dereference mechanisms vary by URI scheme. For instance, the URN scheme [RFC 2141] does not guarantee that a dereference procedure is defined for any given URN.

Agents should be able to dereference absolute URI references for important resources.

Describe resources: Owners of important resources (for example, Internet protocol parameters) SHOULD make available representations that describe the nature and purpose of those resources.

Issue: namespaceDocument-8: What should a "namespace document" look like?

Representation retrieval is safe: Agents do not incur obligations by retrieving a representation.

For instance, a user does not incur an obligation by following an HTML link that causes the user agent to retrieve a representation.

Note: See the TAG finding "URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP GET" for more information about safe retrieval.

Issue: deepLinking-25: What to say in defense of principle that deep linking is not an illegal act?

Editor's note: Need to say something about difference between assertions about a resource and assertions about a representation. E.g., do not use the same URI to refer to the resource "Moby Dick" and to the particular representation of that resource, or do not use the same URI to refer to a person and to that person's mailbox.

2.2.3. Choice of URI or absolute URI reference

When comparison is expected to be the sole or primary operation on an absolute URI reference, it does not matter whether one has chosen a URI or an absolute URI reference to identify a resource.

When one expects to interact with a resource, there are some advantages to identifying that resource with a URI rather than an absolute URI reference: only URIs work with intermediaries in the Web architecture (e.g., proxies) or with redirection (in HTTP, for example).

2.2.4. Absolute URI references and context-sensitivity

Each absolute URI reference unambiguously identifies one resource, but the resource itself may be defined in a context-sensitive manner. For resources of this type, the result of a dereference operation may vary by context. Thus, http://example.org/nearest/pizza/ may unambiguously identify "the nearest pizza restaurant", but the result of a retrieval operation may vary (e.g., it may change with the geographical position of the retrieving agent). Similarly, http://localhost/ and file:/etc/hosts each identify one resource, but that resource is local to a particular computer, so dereference results will vary.

Context-sensitive absolute URI references can be useful (e.g., when one needs to find pizza or talk about host names in Unix environments). However, on the public Internet, an identifier such as file:/etc/hosts is a poor choice for the generic resource "host information" because, in many contexts (i.e., most non-Unix operating systems), host information is not maintained in a file named /etc/hosts.

Be aware of context-sensitivity in absolute URI references: Owners and users of absolute URI references SHOULD ensure that any context-sensitivity of these identifiers is appropriate.

2.2.5. Consistent representations

The representations of a resource may vary as a function of factors including time, the identity of the agent accessing the resource, data submitted to the resource when interacting with it, and changes external to the resource. For example, for the resource "the weather forecast for Oaxaca, Mexico," the representations depend on (at least) time, the expressed preference of the user for Fahrenheit or Celsius, the identity of the user-agent software receiving the representation, and, presumably, the weather in Oaxaca.

Use consistent representations: There is a strong expectation of consistency between the representations of a resource; to the extent possible, representations SHOULD be equivalent.

Editor's note: Need to clarify what "equivalent" means in the previous sentence. Yes! See note above.

2.3. Persistence

There is a difference between changes in representations of a resource and changes in the binding between an absolute URI reference and a resource. The absolute URI reference http://www.w3.org/ identifies the resource "the W3C home page." A representation retrieved today for that absolute URI reference is likely to differ from one you get tomorrow, since W3C updates its home page frequently with news items. Though the news changes, the resource remains "the W3C home page".

On the other hand, if tomorrow, the same absolute URI reference identified a different resource (for example, because the domain was sold and the new owner decided to assert a different URI-Resource relationship), the identifier would lose value. This type of indiscriminate reuse of identifiers undermines their value and interferes with people who relied on them.

There are strong social expectations that once an absolute URI reference identifies a particular resource, it should continue indefinitely to refer to that resource; this is called the persistence of the absolute URI reference. Persistence is always a matter of policy and commitment on the part of authorities assigning URIs rather than a constraint imposed by technological means.

Support persistence: Those who create and manage resources and their identifiers SHOULD design the identifiers in such a way as to ensure their persistence.

For example, each W3C technical report (e.g., "the SVG specification") is in fact a series of documents that mature over time (from Working Drafts, Candidate Recommendations, Proposed Recommendations, to Recommendation). W3C assigns an absolute URI reference to the "latest version" in the series (e.g., http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG). W3C also assigns an absolute URI reference for each specification in the series (called the "this version URI", e.g., http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/PR-SVG-20010719/). W3C policy is that representations of the "latest version" resource will change over time (with each new publication of an SVG specification). W3C policy is also that representations of a specification designated by a "this version" identifier will not change over time, to the best of W3C's ability to maintain its archives intact.

For more discussion about persistence, refer to [Cool].2

2.4. URI Schemes

One important characteristic of a URI is its scheme (the string that precedes the first colon in a URI). For example the scheme of the URI http://www.example.com/ is "http", and for ftp://ftp.example.com/ it is "ftp". It is common to classify URIs by scheme, calling the two preceding examples respectively an "HTTP URI" and an "FTP URI".

Correct processing of URIs is often scheme-dependent, and since a huge range of software is expected to be able to process URIs, the cost of introduction of new URI schemes is very high.

Avoid unnecessary new URI schemes: Authors of specifications SHOULD avoid introducing new URI schemes when existing schemes can be used to meet the goals of the specifications.

While "myscheme:blort" is a URI that satisfies the syntactic constraints of [RFC2396], if "myscheme" is not registered, you don't have license to use that URI in any Internet protocols; there aren't any valid uses of it. You can't expect anybody to know what you mean by it, and you aren't guaranteed that somebody else isn't already using it for something else.

Do not use unregistered URI schemes: Unregistered URI schemes MUST NOT be used on the public Internet.

The IANA registry [IANASchemes] lists URI schemes and the specifications that define them. For instance, the HTTP URI scheme is defined in section 3.2.2 of the HTTP specification [RFC2616]. Refer to RFC2717 for information about registering a new URI scheme.

The deployment and use of different URI schemes may require varying degrees of central coordination and administration. For example, MAILTO, FTP, and HTTP URIs depend (in practice at least) on the use of the DNS infrastructure. Also, there is a central registry of URN subclasses.

URN subclasses are referred to as "namespaces". They are identified by namespace identifiers, or NIDs [RFC2141] [RFC2611].

Issue: httpRange-14 : What is the range of HTTP URIs? Some URI schemes are used to identify specific classes of resources. Two views held within the TAG are that the range of HTTP URIs is (1) anything or (2) "documents," used in a very broad sense.

2.5. Fragment identifiers

In some URI schemes it is meaningful for an absolute URI reference to end with a fragment identifier. The fragment identifier is interpreted only after the retrieval of a representation. Section 4.1 of [RFC2396] states that "the format and interpretation of fragment identifiers is dependent on the media type [RFC2046] of the retrieval result," that is, the representation.

For instance, if the representation is an HTML document, the fragment identifies a hypertext anchor. In the case of a graphics format, the fragment might identify a circle or spline. In the Resource Description Framework [RDF10], fragments can be used to identify anything, be it abstract (e.g., a dream) or concrete (e.g., an automobile).

Good practice note. Be aware of content negotiation and fragment semantics: Authors SHOULD NOT use HTTP content negotiation for different media types that do not share the same fragment identifier semantics.

Editor's note: There has been some discussion but no agreement that new access protocols should provide a means to convert fragment identifiers according to media type.

2.6. Some generalities about absolute URI references

The following generalities about absolute URI references are included to answer some frequently asked questions about URIs. Some of these generalities do not hold for all URI schemes.

  1. The authority over an absolute URI reference determines which resource it identifies.
  2. It is not possible to inspect an absolute URI reference and determine what resource it identifies. For example, in general, one cannot look at http://www.example.com/lj45sr and know that it refers to "my old car" or "the weather forecast for Oaxaca."

    Over time, we trust that some absolute URI references will identify familiar resources, but that trust derives from social behavior, not the spelling of the identifier.

  3. Several different absolute URI references can identify the same resource.
  4. It is possible to compare two absolute URI references to see whether they are spelled equivalently; see the section on comparison of identifiers for more details.
  5. It is not possible to inspect two absolute URI references that are spelled differently and determine whether they identify the same resource. This does not prevent some URI schemes from mandating equivalence for particular sets of URIs using that scheme.
  6. It is not possible to inspect an absolute URI reference and know the media type of representation(s) of that resource. For example, do not assume that an absolute URI reference that ends with the string ".html" refers to a resource that has an HTML representation. Of course, resource owners should not publish absolute URI references likely to cause confusion.

3. Formats

I assume this section is incopmplete.

3.1. Scope

What is a format, and how does it relate to the concept of a document. Do all documents have a format? Is a document a collection of resources of different formats organized into a whole? Is a document the same as a resource? the same as a message body? as a non-multipart message body? What is the distinction between documents and data, if any. Does 'document' imply human readable and if so, does it imply presentation? Does it imply a hierarchically structured, report-like document with headings and subheadings? Is a catalog a document? Is a rave flyer a document?

Negotiation (stuff above might go here also) by network request, by listed alternatives in content any preference? Resource variants, foo.css and foo.html unlikely to be equivalent.

3.2. Content, Presentation, and Interaction

This section attempts to organize some areas of future discussion. Separating the concepts content, presentation, and interaction allows more easily composable specifications. For example, a markup language can be specified independently of a style sheet language. The separation facilitates alternate presentations of the same content, which is seen to have an accessibility advantage and to be more suited to the multiple modalities of Web access.

Issue: contentPresentation-26: Separation of semantic and presentational markup, to the extent possible, is architecturally sound.

3.2.1. Content

Composability (ns-meaning). Use of XML for tree structured content. Linking in general v. idref in one document. Human readable v. machine data. Served or not (hidden behind server - semantic firewall, accessibility. Linking into parts of the content, transclusion of parts. Compound documents, components from multiple servers - scalability, deep linking. Processing models, error handling.

3.2.2. Presentation

Presentation by decoration (application of CSS to XML as presentation), and by derivation (creation of html/svg/etc as presentation). Linking (bidirectionally) between content and presentations. Inheritance of properties across namespaces. Consistency of property names. Subsets. 'Applies to' as opposed to 'set on'. Specificity of properties as attributes, chaining styling, restyling. Time-lines, linking to portions of a time-line.

3.2.3. Interaction

Animation, scripting, events, client/server interaction. Declarative v. script based - accessibility, power; formalization of common functionality (loop animation, rollovers) in declarative form. DOM - making additional methods, add to rather than replacing XML DOM. Effect of script/programming language limitations on choice of element and attribute names. Linking to active components - XForms example with model and abstract form control, can be extended to presentational instantiation of form control.

3.3. Ideas and issues

  1. For new format specifications, use XML family of specifications unless there's a good reason not to. Which XML specifications? Which particular family members?
  2. Format designers should use URIs without constraining content providers to particular URI schemes. What does "use" mean? IDREF v. linking - web-wide rather than document-wide references.
  3. Namespaces. Issues namespaceDocument-8, mixedNamespaceMeaning-13
  4. Qnames: Issues rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6, qnameAsId-18 and finding "Using QNames as Identifiers in Content"
  5. Formatting properties: Issue formattingProperties-19, contentPresentation-26
  6. Error handling: Issue errorHandling-20
  7. Media type registration: RFC3023Charset-21, finding Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use. Also, makes sure to define fragment identifier semantics.
  8. Effect of Mobile on architecture - size, complexity, memory constraints. Binary infosets, storage efficiency. Composable subsets.
  9. What is the scope of using XLink? xlinkScope-23
  10. Can a specification include rules for overriding HTTP content type parameters? contentTypeOverride-24
  11. Create formats that allow authors to hide URIs from view (e.g., behind link text). For authors: at times it is useful or necessary to reveal a URI (e.g., in an advertisement on the side of a bus), in which case, good social behavior requires that the URI be easy to use.

4. Protocols

As mentioned in the introduction, the Web is designed to create the large-scale effect of a shared information space that scales well and behaves predictably. The architectural style known as Representational State Transfer [REST] encapsulates this notion of a shared information space. According to Fielding:

REST provides a set of architectural constraints that, when applied as a whole, emphasizes scalability of component interactions, generality of interfaces, independent deployment of components, and intermediary components to reduce interaction latency, enforce security, and encapsulate legacy systems.
-- Roy Fielding, Section 5.5 of [REST]

HTTP has been specially designed for REST interactions. HTTP offers a variety of ways to interact with a resource, including GET, POST, PUT, and DELETE.

The following sections use the REST model to explain how Web protocols take into account the properties of resources and URIs, as well as real-world time and space constraints, in order to improve the user's Web experience.

4.1. REST constraints

The REST constraints are:

Client/server model
REST separates rendering concerns from the data model and control logic.
Stateless protocols
Each request from client to server contains all the necessary data for a server to understand the request.
Caching
Some representations may be cached. Intermediaries may respond on behalf of a server with the cached data.
Uniform Interface
The consistent constraints on interface between components, specifically resource identification, resource manipulation through representations, self-describing messages, and messages as the embodiment of application state.
Layering
The encapsulation of each component so that components "know" only about the components with which they are interacting.
Optional Code-on-demand
Clients may download and execute code (such as Java Applets, ActiveX controls, scripts, and XSLT).

REST focuses on the roles of components, the constraints upon their interaction with other components, and their interpretation of significant data elements. REST ignores the details of component implementation and protocol syntax. REST components communicate by transferring a representation of a resource, selected dynamically based on the capabilities or desires of the recipient and the nature of the resource. Whether the representation is in the same format as the raw source, or is derived from the source, remains hidden behind the interface.

Typical hypertext systems support one of three possible styles of data representation:

  1. render the data where it is located and send a fixed-format image to the recipient,
  2. encapsulate the data with a rendering engine and send both to the recipient, or
  3. send the raw data to the recipient along with metadata that describes the data type, so that the recipient can choose their own rendering engine.

The Web provides a hybrid of all three options by focusing on a shared understanding of data types with metadata, but limiting the scope of what is revealed to a standardized interface.

Web components perform various roles in interactions. User agents, gateways, proxies, and origin servers are the main roles that a component can act in. A component may act in different roles depending upon the interaction.

4.2. Ideas and issues

  1. Consistency of media types and message contents (from "TAG Finding: Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use"
  2. Consistency of communicating character encoding (same source).
  3. HTTP as a substrate protocol [TAG issue HTTPSubstrate-16]

5. Glossary

Absolute URI Reference
a URI followed optionally by a fragment identifier.
Agents
programs acting on behalf of another person, entity, or process
Dereference
To dereference an absolute URI reference is to interact with the resource it identifies. This definition seems incomplete: I think the interaction returns an representation and does not change the state of the resource
Internet Media Type
the metadata/packaging system [RFC2046]. As mentioned above, this seems odd use of terminology. Also, the main referebce for the "system" is RFC 2045.
Link
When one resource refers to another via an absolute URI reference, a link is formed.
Persistence
There are strong social expectations that once an absolute URI reference identifies a particular resource, it should continue indefinitely to refer to that resource; this is called the persistence of the absolute URI reference. I tend to view persistence of a URI as avoiding its reuse for a different purpose. This somehow seems more realistically achievable.
REST
The architectural style known as Representational State Transfer [REST] encapsulates this "this"? notion of a shared information space.
Representation
One interacts with a resource by the exchange of representations of resource state. This doesn't read as a glossary entry for "representation". I'd expect something like: "a data object that represents or describes a state of a resource".
Resource
A resource is defined by [RFC2396] (missing hyperlink?) to be anything that has identity.
Retrieve a representation
to retrieve an snapshot "an snapshot"? of a state of the resource. Suggest something like: "An interaction with a resource that returnbs a representation of its state".
URI Scheme
One important characteristic of a URI is its scheme (the string that precedes the first colon in a URI).
Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
a character sequence starting with a scheme name, followed by a number of scheme-specific fields.

6. References

6.1. Normative References

IANASchemes
IANA's online registry of URI Schemes is available at http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.
Dan Connolly's list of URI schemes is a useful resource for finding out which references define various URI schemes.
RFC2046
IETF "RFC 2046: Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", N. Freed, N. Borenstein, November 1996. Available at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2046.txt.
RFC2119
IETF "RFC 2119: Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", S. Bradner, March 1997. Available at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt.
RFC2396
IETF "RFC 2396: Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, L. Masinter, August 1998. Available at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt.
RFC2616
IETF "RFC 2616: Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", J. Gettys, J. Mogul, H. Frystyk, L. Masinter, P. Leach, T. Berners-Lee, June 1999. Available at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt.
RFC2717
IETF "Registration Procedures for URL Scheme Names", R. Petke, I. King, November 1999. Available at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2717.txt.

6.2. Non-Normative References

Axioms
"Universal Resource Identifiers - Axioms of Web Architecture", T. Berners-Lee, living document dated December 1996. Available at http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms
Cool
"Cool URI's don't change" T. Berners-Lee, W3C, 1998 Available at http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI
CSS2
"Cascading Style Sheets, level 2", B. Bos, H. Lie, C. Lilley, I. Jacobs, 12 May 1998. This W3C Recommendation is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512/.
Eng90
"Knowledge-Domain Interoperability and an Open Hyperdocument System", D. C. Engelbart, June 1990.
Fielding
"Principled Design of the Modern Web Architecture", R.T. Fielding and R.N. Taylor, UC Irvine.In Proceedings of the 2000 International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2000), Limerick, Ireland, June 2000, pp. 407-416. This document is available at http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/webarch_icse2000.pdf.
Fragments
"Fragment Identifiers on URIs", T. Berners-Lee, living document dated April 1997. Available at http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Fragment
HTML40
"HTML 4.01 Specification", D. Raggett, A. Le Hors, I. Jacobs, 24 December 1999. This W3C Recommendation is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/.
P3P10
"The Platform for Privacy Preferences 1.0 (P3P1.0) Specification", M. Marchiori, ed., 16 April 2002. This W3C Recommendation is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-P3P-20020416/.
RDF10
"Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification", O. Lassila, R. R. Swick, eds., 22 February 1999. This W3C Recommendation is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/.
REST
" Representational State Transfer (REST)", Chapter 5 of "Architectural Styles and the Design of Network-based Software Architectures", Doctoral Thesis of R. T. Fielding, 2000.
RFC2141
IETF "RFC 2141: URN Syntax", R. Moats, May 1997. Available at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2141.txt.
RFC2718
"Guidelines for new URL Schemes", L. Masinter, H. Alvestrand, D. Zigmond, R. Petke, November 1999. Available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2718.txt.
RFC3236
IETF "RFC 3236: The 'application/xhtml+xml' Media Type", M. Baker, P. Stark, January 2002. Available at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3236.txt
SVG10
"Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) 1.0 Specification", J. Ferraiolo, ed., 4 Sep 2001. This W3C Recommendation is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-SVG-20010904/.
UniqueDNS
" IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root", B. Carpenter, 27 Sep 1999.
XHTML10
"XHTML 1.0: The Extensible HyperText Markup Language: A Reformulation of HTML 4 in XML 1.0", S. Pemberton et al., 26 January 2000. The latest version of this W3C Recommendation is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/.
XLink10
"XML Linking Language (XLink) Version 1.0", S. DeRose, E. Maler, D. Orchard, 27 June 2001. This W3C Recommendation is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xlink-20010627/.
XML10
"Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition)", T. Bray, J. Paoli, C.M. Sperberg-McQueen, E. Maler, 6 October 2000. This W3C Recommendation is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006.
XMLNS
"Namespaces in XML", T. Bray, D. Hollander, A. Layman, 14 Jan 1999. This W3C Recommendation is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/.
W3CPROCESS
" W3C Process Document", 19 July 2001 Version.

7. End notes

  1. This principle dates back at least as far as Douglas Engelbart's seminal work on open hypertext systems; see section Every Object Addressable in [Eng90]. (Note 1 context.)
  2. The title is somewhat misleading. It's not the URIs that change, it's what they identify. (Note 2 context.)

8. Acknowledgments

The authors of this document are the participants of W3C's Technical Architecture Group: Tim Berners-Lee (Chair, W3C), Tim Bray (Antarctica Systems), Dan Connolly (W3C), Paul Cotton (Microsoft), Roy Fielding (Day Software), Chris Lilley (W3C), David Orchard (BEA Systems), Norman Walsh (Sun), and Stuart Williams (Hewlett-Packard).

The TAG thanks people for their thoughtful contributions on the TAG's public mailing list, www-tag (archive).