W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2003

Re: FYI RE: #foo URI references

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 04:19:14 +0200
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Message-Id: <62CCC0E3-BE46-11D7-8614-000A958826AA@sidar.org>

I don't think the reasoning holds - if the author creates a specific  
base and they mess with the navigation it is like not having created  
the navigation in the first place - they did it.

So I don't think we need to say anything.

my 2 bits

Chaals

On Tuesday, Jul 22, 2003, at 16:48 Europe/Zurich, Al Gilman wrote:

>
> [Sent to PF, PF and UAAG Team Contacts, and WAI-CG by Bcc: to avert  
> cross-posting of threads.]
>
> The issue is: should relative URIs which contain only the #fragment  
> syntax
> be resolved against the BASE of the current Resource or the data in  
> hand,
> the content of the current document [a.k.a. Resource Representation].
>
> Larry Masinter opined we should leave the "current document" semantics  
> intact
> as in the current RFC for URIs.
>
> I weakly agreed, offering an argument from disorientation on refresh.
>
> Find thread from original post to uri list at
>
> X-Archived-At:  
> http://www.w3.org/mid/ 
> 5.1.0.14.2.20030722093245.02739ec0@pop.iamdigex.net
>
> Jon, Matt, Ian:  I cite UAAG as precedent, here.
>
> PF: Does anybody see a hole in my reasoning?  Should we be saying  
> anything stronger?
>
> WAI-CG others: if you see an issue for your group, speak up.
>
> Al
>
> -- original post where I take a position alleging disability interest  
> --
>
> At 09:49 PM 2003-07-21, Larry Masinter wrote:
>
>> I'm in favor of leaving "#foo" as a reference to
>> 'this document' independent of having an explicit 'base'.
>
> Caveat:  haven't done extensive analysis of this, nor is this in any  
> way a
> consensus position from any subset of the WAI, but there is at least  
> one
> line of argument suggesting that the disability interest would favor  
> the
> position that Larry asserted above.
>
> This has to do with the disorientation that happens on document
> refresh when someone is using a screen reader or other delivery
> context where there is not a lot of persistent display buffer
> between the client and the user.  The concern leads to things like
>
> <quote
> cite=
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/guidelines.html#tech-configure-content- 
> retrieval">
>
>       3.5 Toggle automatic content retrieval (P1) (...)
>
>     1. Allow configuration so that the user agent only retrieves
>        content on explicit user request.
>
> </quote>
>
> If we bind #foo to a full global path computed with the latest state  
> of the
> BASE property this could have the effect of making intra-document
> references, that _can_ be satisfied without a refresh, always force a  
> refresh
> for specification compliance.  An unintended but deleterious result  
> for the
> screen-reader-user (for example) could be that all the web-author's  
> careful
> construction of an internal navigation system would be defeated  
> because the
> visitor was finding themselves in a different document each time they  
> try to
> use the navaids to move within the one that they have in hand.
>
> Since there is syntax, (is it sameTerminalPathSegment#foo ?) that will  
> have
> the global, with BASE invoked, effect, and this is not that burdensome  
> with
> the terminal path segments that are commonly used, I don't see the  
> downside
> to what Larry espoused.
>
> Al
>
>> Larry
>
>
--
Charles McCathieNevile                          Fundación Sidar
charles@sidar.org                                http://www.sidar.org
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2003 22:19:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:31 GMT