- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:14:15 +0100
- To: Romain Deltour <rdeltour@gmail.com>
- Cc: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>, Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>
- Message-Id: <7B63BC78-7916-418C-B214-F9340726A432@w3.org>
(I have added a [locators] prefix to the subject. It may be a good practice for those who use such prefixes for mail filtering…) Hi Romain, > On 21 Dec 2015, at 19:17, Romain Deltour <rdeltour@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> 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). > We agree! (And I clearly misunderstood a remark on the call.) And I indeed think any discussion on a possible fragment ID is premature at this point although it may come up later if we need it. A side issue: in theory, registering a fragment ID is relatively easy if part of the definition of a new media type. But it seems to be complicated, and I am not even sure how this should be done, if it is meant for an existing data type. Ie, where is such a definition should be registered, documented, etc. (Heather might know something on this, though…) The XML world has defined the xpointer scheme which allows for the registration of XXXX#foo(bar) type fragment identifiers (cfi has been registered that way I believe) but that mechanism has been defined for XML syntaxes only. I do not know how one would, say, define and register, formally, a new fragment ID for HTML. One more reasons to try to keep away from all this if we can… Ivan > 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 <http://www.example.org/A#B> >> >> then the GET request will deliver the http://www.example.org/A <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 <http://www.example.org/A!B> >> >> then the server is supposed to deliver http://www.example.org/A!B <http://www.example.org/A!B> to the client, not http://www.example.org/A <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/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/> >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704> >> >> >> >> > ---- 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
Received on Tuesday, 22 December 2015 08:14:35 UTC