- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:42:33 +0200
- To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi, Discussion on "same-document" references started a long time ago when Dom managed to have the group follow his unwise principle that a URI always represents the resource and not a given representation of the resource. This led to the production of a very smart algorithm in the last call version of the guidelines. This was shortly followed by last call comment LC-2009 [1]. The comment pointed us to section 4.4 of RFC3986 "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax" [2] that defines the concept of "same-document reference". In particular, it does say: [[ When a same-document reference is dereferenced for a retrieval action, the target of that reference is defined to be within the same entity (representation, document, or message) as the reference; therefore, a dereference should not result in a new retrieval action. ]] ... meaning that a URI that appears in the representation of a resource and that happens to be a same-document reference represents the representation of the resource, and not the resource itself. We blamed Dom. We still had extensive discussions on the topic such as in [3], in particular because it also connects with the ("Oh no!", the Lemming says and explodes) ISSUE-222 [4] and the TAG Finding On Linking Alternative Representations To Enable Discovery And Publishing [5]. The thing is the theory does not entirely match practice and most (all?) browsers do not correctly handle the case when you want to use a canonical URI for bookmarking purpose. Plus there is no true way to define a URI as the canonical URI for a set of representations [6]. Whilst this is true, it is not directly related to the definition of a "same-document reference" and does not change its definition either. In short, unless we have good reasons not to, we should stick to the definition of the above-mentioned RFC, and this is exactly what Appendix G.1.4.2 [7] does. However, the first bullet point in section 4.2.9 [8] restricts the possibility of a "Same Document reference" to an empty href attribute. For consistency, the text should rather be: [[ the content is HTML and contains <link rel="alternate" media="handheld" href="[same-ref]"/> where [same-ref] is a "Same Document reference" as defined in RFC 3986 section 4.4 [REF]. In particular, an empty href attribute is a "Same Document Reference". ]] Francois. [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2009 [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986.html#section-4.4 [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0027.html [4] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/222 [5] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/alternatives-discovery.html [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Feb/0096.html [7] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090622#sec-use-of-link-element [8] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090622#sec-proxy-decision-to-transform
Received on Monday, 22 June 2009 15:43:09 UTC