W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > December 2015

Re: [Locators] Musing on the "URL of a constituent resource" issue...

From: Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 10:11:13 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+FkZ9E05cyOf0eCFWw06Q3a+m1kXSa63-yDWg+ecHTXk86r8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Hello,

As discussed before, HTTP GET requests to the following (illustrative)
URLs could effectively result in the exact same response (i.e. payload
+ content type), regardless of whether a static filesystem is used in
the server backend, or whether database queries are performed behind
the scenes:

https://server.com/get/publication1.pwp

https://cdn.server.com/download?pwp=publication1

https://pwp.server.com/publication1

https://publication1.server.com

etc.

By the way, the above example "publication1.pwp" may be interpreted as
a single-file packaged / zipped PWP (e.g. 'application/pwp+zip'
content type), or as a reference to a container file (e.g.
'application/pwp-manifest+json') ... but this is a separate issue.

So, I don't believe that a new method for "symbolic linking" is
needed, let alone defined within the scope of PWP. Such PWP-specific
level of indirection would not be aligned with www good practices for
"regular" websites / web apps. I think that document authors / content
developers should follow guidelines to future-proof URIs, should use
existing mechanisms like HTTP redirects, URL rewrites, etc. (thus my
previous email "Cool URIs don't change" link) In my opinion, a PWP
specification should define "meta" functional and logical layers, such
as a publication manifest (well-defined set of container resource URLs
/ URIs), high-level navigation document, bibliographic metadata, etc.
I can see how "symbolic linking" may help in some cases with
publication maintenance (i.e. renamed URLs), but this would
conceptually be not much different than EPUB's ID / IDREF in the OPF
package.

Daniel


On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html
>
> :)
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Just some musing on the whole 'what is the URL of a constituent resource'
>> issue related to locators; I wanted to step away from the '#' vs. '!' issue.
>> Sorry for a somewhat longer mail, bear with me; I have some specific
>> questions at the end which may or may not direct us in a different
>> direction...
>>
>> To begin, what is the use case which raises this whole discussion in the
>> context of PWP?
>>
>> Let us say we have two PWP-s, 'A' and 'B'. They have each a URL, ie, a
>> locator, say:
>>
>> • http://www.ex.org/A
>> • http://www.ex.org/B
>>
>> The use case we referred to on the call is that there may be a shared
>> resource 'F' that the publisher wants to maintain (say, a font file on its
>> own location on the Web, say at:
>>
>> • http://fonts.ex.org/F
>>
>> Per the definition of a PWP, there is no reason why the resource 'F' would
>> not be part of both 'A' and 'B'. After all, 'A' and 'B' are Web
>> Publications, ie, "an aggregated set of interrelated Web Resources". Members
>> of that set are "listed" somewhere to define 'A' and 'B', respectively; this
>> is also why we would have a manifest (let us put the manifest format aside
>> for now). If 'F' is self contained, then 'A' and 'B' are also portable web
>> publications. So? Are we done, there is no issue, can we go home? :-)
>>
>> Well... I think that there are legitimate situations when we want to use
>> that font from within 'A' or 'B', with simple, fixed, and probably relative
>> URL-s. E.g., the publisher wants an easy way to relocate 'F' for whatever
>> reasons to, say, http://fonts.ex.org/fonts/F; that may require all resources
>> in, say, 'A' to change their URL-s to F. Not good. If there is one place 'X'
>> that 'points' to the URL of 'F', and all resources 'A' refer to the URL
>> representing 'X' then maintenance becomes easy. This is a case where our
>> discussion comes into the picture (using, say, '!' or cfi or similar).
>>
>> Stepping away from the Web for a moment: the scenario above is actually
>> fairly common in managing one's own file system. And this is why these crazy
>> computer scientists invented symbolic links. This means that, in my folder
>> (or directory, depending on the term used), I can create a symbolic link 's'
>> that refers to the file 'f' somewhere on my file system. Any program
>> referring to 's' (ie, reading the content 's') will in fact read,
>> transparently, the content of 'f'; ie, the system will silently open 'f' for
>> that content. If 'f' is moved then 's' has to change, but no other program
>> has to be changed. Symbolic links are used all over the place; they have
>> been around on UNIX-like systems (that includes OS X) for ages and, afaik,
>> they are also available in Windows.
>>
>> Does this sound familiar? The melody is similar to our issue... Actually, on
>> specific Web servers it is perfectly possible to reproduce something
>> somewhat similar. Apache knows the 're-write rule' concept; on my server I
>> can (if I have the right authorization) set up a special file (usually
>> .htaccess) where I can add a rewrite rule which essentially says:
>>
>> • "if you see 'http://www.ex.org/A/fonts/F' then go to
>> 'http://fonts.ex.org/F' instead"
>>
>> (What this really does is to send back an HTTP response to the client
>> instructing it to issue a new request to the other URL.)
>>
>> The good think is that this is common occurence on the Web, and does not
>> require any special processing on the client. The bad thing is that this is
>> Apache specific, not all users have the right to set something like that up,
>> not all users knows what exactly to do. But, also, it is a bit vulnerable
>> because all re-write rules would be in one place (at least for a directory):
>> the distributed approach of symbolic links is much safer against accidental
>> damage, which is a good thing.
>>
>> So… here is my question. Is it possible to have a symbolic link like
>> structure to solve our problems? I.e., tiny small files (possibly with some
>> attached minor javascripts) whose only role is to instruct the client to do
>> a redirection somewhere else? Something that makes use of existing
>> technologies; ideally, the client (browser, javascript) should not even have
>> to do anything because all the redirections are handled on HTTP level?  I
>> have seen PHP based solutions, but that is not a good approach, we do not
>> want to be dependent on a specific server side technology. Anybody knows a
>> good approach that we may get inspired by?
>>
>> (Actually, if the server runs Linux (or MacOS) real symbolic links also make
>> the trick, because servers would follow those just as any other programs
>> do.)
>>
>> Is this line of thought worse pursuing, or is complete boloney?
>>
>> Merry Xmas or any other relevant holidays to you all!
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
Received on Thursday, 24 December 2015 10:12:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:20 UTC