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

I am personally wary of any use of '#' in a URL, even if it is in a
different scheme.  While it would be perfectly legitimate to define and
register a new scheme that has difference semantics for '#', it would be
potentially confusing for developers.  I am sure there is some other
separator you could use if you really want to identify a sub-resource.
Heck, you could even make it part of a query string.

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
wrote:

> 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> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.