- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 02:44:56 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
@r12a, that is all correct and o.k., but I do not think it is all that relevant for the particular item in this spec. You can regard 'State' (as well as Selectors) as some sort of fragment identifiers on steroids. Instead of having a very simple way of identifying a particular part of a resource (the `#...`) we try to add more. The State allows a certain level of control of the HTTP request when it is issued on the core URL. What can be controlled, in this sense, is what goes in the request header; that is what 'Request Header State' does. It is a one step control over the request, incomplete as it may be. (Note that there is a similar issue with the time version of state: the request may have information about the time range to request a particular version in time of a resource; there is no guarantee that the server can honour that request.) While it is correct that the request header's state may not provide all the necessary information for language negotiations, there is _no_ claim that it does either. Some aspects may require the implementation, the particular usage, etc, to process the result further, but that _is_ out of scope at that point. For some usages a further refinement through, say, CSS selectors (or other) may be possible; I am not sure. But I maintain that this current issue is out of scope for this particular spec at this particular point. Hence the issue should remain closed. (Note that handling the return header is not as easy as I would have thought. I learned at the F2F meeting that a JS script running in a browser has major difficulties getting hold of the response header. Sounds crazy, but there we are...) -- GitHub Notification of comment by iherman Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/220#issuecomment-220754436 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 21 May 2016 02:44:59 UTC