RE: While it is still fresh in our minds: '!' is not just a funny fragment identifier...

I would also add that it would be extremely valuable that any such fragment idents for PWP be format agnostic, since we are already seeing that EPUB is but a single profile of PWP and that there may be others - and these idents need to work for all.

Leonard

From: Romain Deltour [mailto:rdeltour@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 1:17 PM
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>; Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com>; W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Subject: Re: While it is still fresh in our minds: '!' is not just a funny fragment identifier...


This is a major difference that we should not forget about.

Absolutely, right.

I was more thinking in terms of spec work:  we should not try to (re)invent the wheel and touch fragment IDs where they're already well-defined (like HTML), but on the other hand, for new media types (for instance a JSON PWP manifest?) we have new grounds to explore and it may be relevant to consider at a fragment identifier-based approach (which is, as you correctly point out, technically different from a custom-URL-separator-based approach).

Romain.

On 21 Dec 2015, at 18:21, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote:

This came up today, I think maybe Romain mentioned it: that the '!' approach for content URL looks very much like a fragment ID, so why do we make a differentiation? (But I may have misunderstood the remark, in which case my apologies!)

There is one aspect that we should not forget about where '!' and '#' are very different. Per HTTP the fragment identifier is resolved, and acted upon, on the client side. Ie, the approach is that if I request

http://www.example.org/A#B

then the GET request will deliver the http://www.example.org/A as a whole to the client, which will then select, in a second step, B out of A.

However, a '!' is a bona fide part of a URI. Ie, if I request

http://www.example.org/A!B

then the server is supposed to deliver http://www.example.org/A!B to the client, not http://www.example.org/A (whatever that is).

This is a major difference that we should not forget about.

Happy holidays and lots of rest to all of you/us!

Ivan



----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704