Re: Linking to alternate representation in HTML responses using the Link element

Thanks Andrea!

I still think there is a potentially useful point in linking to self for 
your case 2 below: to act as a flag. When the user directly addresses 
the "handheld" representation of the site (because he bookmarked it for 
instance), if it only contains a:
   <link rel="alternate" media="screen" type="[content-type]" 
href="[desktop URI]" />
then the CT-proxy has no way to tell that it actually received the 
"handheld" version of the site. It could be the "tty" one, or even the 
"screen and (min-width: 800px)" one, who knows.

Having a "handheld" flag would at least tell the CT-proxy that the 
content was specifically tailored with "mobile" in mind.

But I agree that it sounds like a perverted use: such links are supposed 
to be a means to discover alternative representations of a resource, and 
the typical use we want to make with them is for content providers to add a:
   <link rel="alternate" media="handheld" type="[content-type]" href="" />
and we don't really care if they include a link to the "screen" version 
of the URI.

It could be better to use something like what Jo proposed in a previous 
email:
   <meta name="media" content="handheld" />
but, given the fact that the HTTP Link header is under heavy discussions 
nowadays and might reappear in a not-so-far-away future, the use of a 
"link" element still sounds better. We could introduce a new "rel" 
value. Not sure it's such a good idea though.

Francois.

PS: the "media" attribute has to follow the rules defined in:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/types.html#type-media-descriptors
... and extended in the non-implemented-yet CSS media queries Candidate 
Recommendation:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-css3-mediaqueries-20070606/
In particular, there is a "tv" representation, but "Nintendo Wii" and 
"Sony PSP" are way too specific to be ever considered as a possible 
value, I'm afraid.

PS2: I totally agree with the query string stuff.



Andrea Trasatti wrote:
> Hello all,
> sorry for jumping into the discussion as I'm not really an active member 
> of the list, but I'd be happy to share my two cents.
> 
>  From a logical point of view, linking to self seems useless. José has a 
> point here, though: to notify a transcoder you use the link alternate 
> and it is proven to work at least with Google's GWT and I suppose with 
> most of the others.
> 
> My suggestion to the group, then, is that you invite site owners to use 
> the link alternate as a way to notify clients and proxies that there is 
> also a valid alternative to the content provided and there should be a 
> way to notify about handheld, "screen" for desktop computers or any 
> other alternative presentation (anyone for TV? Nintendo Wii? Sony PSP?). 
> In my view the W3C document should suggest to content developers to use 
> the link tag to notify of an alternative (or alternate) presentation. 
> The document should suggest to developers to use the link alternate that 
> refers to a different presentation, i.e. content for handhelds when a 
> "desktop" presentation has been provided. Linking to self should be 
> suggested when the site is also making content adaptation (such as 
> mymobileweb). Which means: "I served you a desktop presentation, but I 
> could also provide handheld presentation to this same URL, if I knew you 
> are a mobile".
> 
> In short, the link alternate that refers to an "alternative 
> presentation" should be there when there _is_, in fact, an alternative 
> presentation, but not if the current one is the only one.
> 
> What we should see in the real world are the following cases:
> 1. a site has a unique presentation, no content adaptation, no device 
> detection: no link alternate
> 2. a site has two separate URL's or query string parameters, multiple 
> presentations based on various rules: one or more link alternate tags, 
> one for every alternative presentation, each pointing to a different URL 
> (<link rel="alternate" media="handheld" type="[content-type]" 
> href="http://example.mobi/this_content" />) hopefully pointing straight 
> to the same content for mobile device or the best effort
> 3. a site that has a unique URL and multiple presentations based on 
> various rules: one or more link alternate tags, one for every 
> alternative presentation, each pointing to self
> 
> I am not sure what the behaviour will be in case 3, if the "href" 
> parameter is empty. A test in the field might be appropriate (for both 
> proxies and clients).
> 
> On your other topic about query string, I think that the link alternate 
> should provide all the required parameters to get the same content in an 
> "alternate" format or presentation. If the query string is the method 
> chosen by the site owner, then be it.
> 
> - Andrea
> 
> 
> Il giorno 22/mag/08, alle ore 22:51, Jo Rabin ha scritto:
> 
>>
>> OK. Then this now assumes the status of a recommendation that content 
>> that is mobile SHOULD contain such a link?
>>
>> (Though if I were to be picky I'd wonder how a resource can be an 
>> alternative for itself ... )
>>
>> Jo
>>
>> On 21/05/2008 16:33, Francois Daoust wrote:
>>> Replying to myself after further investigations...
>>> Dom reminded me that instead of "rev", which is probably correct but 
>>> not really ever used in practice, it is actually quite simple and 
>>> semantically valid to do the "linking to self" stuff with a <link> 
>>> element. The [uri] to set is simply... an empty string!
>>> Leading to:
>>> <link rel="alternate" media="handheld" type="[content-type]" href="" />
>>> Indeed, the href attribute may be an absolute or a relative link, and 
>>> thus the empty string here means "current page", which is exactly 
>>> what we need for B) below.
>>> Francois.
>>> Francois Daoust wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Aaron,
>>>> Hi all!
>>>>
>>>> [Aaron, I'm pinging you more specifically on this because it seems 
>>>> that Google's transcoding proxy uses this mechanism, so you might be 
>>>> able to help with concrete practice here]
>>>>
>>>> We talked a bit about using the "link" element in HTML responses in 
>>>> a previous call [1] and a bit on the mailing-list [2] to advertise 
>>>> the fact that:
>>>>  A) a page _has_ a mobile representation that may be requested
>>>>  B) a page _is_ a mobile representation of a resource
>>>>
>>>> The linking mechanism seems simple in theory:
>>>>  <link rel="alternate" media="handheld" type="[content-type]" 
>>>> href="[uri]" />
>>>> as defined in the HTML4.01 spec [3]
>>>>
>>>> In practice, this addresses A, but not B, IMHO, at least not 
>>>> directly. The definition of rel="alternate" [4] makes it clear that 
>>>> [uri] points to an alternative representation of the _document_, 
>>>> from which I understand that "linking to self" should not be 
>>>> permitted, at least not in theory. Am I wrong?
>>>> If I am, then [uri] can be the document itself, but then the 
>>>> questions Jo mentioned in [2] need to be answered to determine what 
>>>> constitutes a link to self:
>>>> - when the server uses redirection, does [uri] target the originally 
>>>> requested URI, the final one, any of them?
>>>> - what about query strings? It has to be part of [uri] if one is 
>>>> using "?experience=handheld", but aren't resources usually 
>>>> identified without the query string?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It occurs to me that we haven't discussed the "reverse linking" 
>>>> mechanism, that may help address B. If you have a main page 
>>>> "index.html" that contains a link such as:
>>>>  <link rel="section" href="section1.html">
>>>> then "section1.html" may identify itself as a section of 
>>>> "index.html" by defining:
>>>>  <link rev="section" href="index.html" />
>>>>
>>>> Given "desktop.html" and "handheld.html", can we define:
>>>>  <link rel="alternate" media="handheld" type="application/xhtml+xml" 
>>>> href="handheld.html" />
>>>> in "desktop.html" and:
>>>>  <link rev="alternate" media="handheld" type="application/xhtml+xml" 
>>>> href="desktop.html" />
>>>> in "handheld.html" to state that "handheld.html" is the "handheld" 
>>>> representation of "desktop.html"?
>>>>
>>>> I'd say yes, but I'm not quite sure this is a valid use of the "rev" 
>>>> mechanism.
>>>> (and I don't quite think that anyone really uses the "rev" mechanism 
>>>> at all actually, but that should not be such a problem).
>>>>
>>>> Going back to the guidelines, I'd say:
>>>> A) if a _forward_ (rel) link with a "handheld" media attribute is 
>>>> encountered, the proxy should redirect the user to the alternate 
>>>> representation
>>>> B) if a _reverse_ (rev) link with a "handheld" media attribute is 
>>>> encountered, then that's it, we've found the handheld version!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-bpwg-minutes.html#item03
>>>> [2] 
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008May/0011.html
>>>> [3] 
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/links.html#h-12.3
>>>> [4] 
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/types.html#type-links
>>>>
>>>>
>>
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 26 May 2008 10:30:13 UTC