W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > November 2016

Re: [web-annotation] Web resources SHOULD be dereferencable via their IRI

From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 16:22:58 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-257917121-1478103776-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
> @azaroth42 <https://github.com/azaroth42>
> Thanks for the resources.
> I include here the recommended good practices from the W3C webpage:
> 
> Good Practice
> 
> _Authorities MAY create HTTP URIs for non-information resources in 
addition to those for information resources.
> 
> If a URI identifies an information resource, the URI owner SHOULD 
provide representations of that resource. This is based on the 
available representation practice 3.5 in [AWWW]
> 
> If a URI identifies a non-information resource, the URI owner SHOULD
 provide an associated information resource which, when dereferenced, 
provides additional information about the original resource. In 
addition, the URI owner SHOULD make the URI of an associated 
information resource available using the mechanism based on returning 
an HTTP response code of 303 to the original request._
> 
> By reading this text, I understand that the recommendation is that 
also "non-information resources" SHOULD be dereferencable,
> 
> even if they are not "directly" dereferencable using their URIs. I 
don't find an inconsistency with my change request.
> 

That is not the way I read it. Authorities MAY create a HTTP URI; *if*
 they do, then there should be an additional mechanism. But the 
operative term is 'MAY'.

The practice of all this may also be very complicated. Just as an 
example (it is only an analogy, does not apply directly to this case, 
but shows the complexities involved) you may have fun reading this 
document:

https://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/

(The HTTPRange-14 discussion that Rob referred to is also similar.)

This whole issue of HTTPRange-14 has been on the SW agenda for long, 
and the fact of the matter is that application developers often 
ignored all this. Using a MAY in our text is a pragmatic 
acknowledgement of the difficulties involved in imposing an ideal 
practice.

My vote is to leave things as they are.



-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by iherman
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/372#issuecomment-257917121
 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2016 16:23:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:50 UTC