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

Re: (Possibly) core issue on identification with EPUB-WEB, packaging, fragments...

From: Nick Ruffilo <nickruffilo@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 11:04:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+Dds58a+mCWRAK=G=ABf9A33mu0JkaEgxPKgBKTb0ka3uC3xA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brady Duga <duga@google.com>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>
Brady,

No matter what there is still a package file.  The real question is - is
that package file "zip" as it is today or some other logical grouping.  I'm
conceptually unable to figure out a situation in which there is not a
"package file"  Even if it's a directory - then it's just nomenclature...
A directory is still a package.



On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Brady Duga <duga@google.com> wrote:

> If there is no package file, do these problems still exist? It seems like
> that is mentioned in the original email, but I am not sure if any of these
> cons apply to it.
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:12 AM Nick Ruffilo <nickruffilo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What if we leave it up to the client/server to determine what the root of
>> the package is and handle it approrpiately?
>>
>> So, an epub-web object (or whatever we call it) might live at :
>> //my/item/awesome.epub
>>
>> To address a specific FILE in that, you go to
>> //my/item/awesome.epub/text/chap2.html
>>
>> To get to a fragment, you just use # in reference to whatever the
>> fragment is:
>> //my/item/awesome.epub/text/chap2.html#first_header
>> //my/item/awesome.epub#SomeCrazyTextRangeIdentifier
>>
>> If run on a server, it would be the server's job to extract the
>> appropriate package files (when thinking about epub, the OPF for example)
>> and provide that to the client, who can then determine the resources it
>> needs and request them from the server.
>>
>> When run LOCALLY, the client will simply extract the package files
>> directly.  Otherwise there is no duplication of work or resources, etc.
>>
>> There was a note about the fragment (things after the #) not being sent
>> to the server.  If that is truly the case - and not just that the server
>> ignores it - a DIFFERENT marker - what - i have no idea...
>>
>> -Nick
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> my sincere apologies for the length of this mail, but I thougt it would
>>> be worthwhile to get some issues written down to clarify our discussions...
>>>
>>> On the F2F meeting I made the claim that the identifier/fragment issue
>>> may be the most tricky one facing us around EPUB-WEB. I thought it is worth
>>> writing this down; maybe somebody can also prove me wrong that this is not
>>> such a complex issue after all. Actually, what is below is a summary of a
>>> very short email/personal discussion Markus, Tzviya, and I had on the
>>> matter after the F2F. (At some point it is probably worth writing down the
>>> conclusions of this thread somewhere on the wiki.)
>>>
>>> With that, here is where I see a real problem.
>>>
>>> Let us consider a Packaged Document. The URL of this document is
>>> http://www.example.org/doc. The document includes, among others,
>>> chapter 2 in file chap2.html. This has a section whose ID is 'sec' (for the
>>> sake of simplicity, I consider here the simplest and best known fragment
>>> used in an HTML file, ie, using the @id attribute on a, say, <h1> element).
>>> The question arising is: what is the full URI for that section? Or, to be
>>> more exact, what is the full, *canonical* URI for that section, ie, a URI
>>> that is independent on whether the document is off-line or on-line?
>>>
>>> An Aside: How do URI-s work?
>>> ----------------------------
>>>
>>> Tzviya told me privately that not everyone on the group may know how
>>> exactly URI-s and fragments work in browsers and on the Web. So maybe just
>>> a few words may be relevant here. If you know this, my apologies, you can
>>> just skip this part.
>>>
>>> A URL consists of, roughly, two parts:
>>>
>>> - A "primary" address that identifies the resource somewhere on the web.
>>> Say, 'http://xyx.example.com/mydoc'
>>> - A "fragment", that is added after the '#' sign, which identifies
>>> something *within* the resource; say, 'mysection'
>>>
>>> There are two steps in handling this to take into account:
>>>
>>> - There can be *only one fragment id in a URL*, ie, only one occurence
>>> of '#'. What is after the '#' is interpreted in accordance with a
>>> corresponding specification that is bound to the media type of the resource
>>>
>>> - A Web browser interprets the fragment locally. Ie, if it gets '
>>> http://xyx.example.com/mydoc#mysection' it
>>>         1. strips the fragment
>>>         2. it issues a request, through the HTTP protocol, for '/mydoc'
>>> to the 'http://xyx.example.com' server
>>>         3. it gets the full resource and then uses the fragment (i.e.,
>>> 'mysection') to identify something within the returned resource.
>>>
>>>
>>> What is the URI with fragment for section 'sec' in a package?
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> (For the sake of this discussion I refer to the way the packaging
>>> specification works in terms of fragments.)
>>>
>>> 1. If http://www.example.org/doc refers to a real, physical package on
>>> the Web, accessing 'sec' chap2.html, using the current fragment
>>> specification in the packaging document, would be:
>>>
>>> http://www.example.org/doc#url=/chap2.html;fragment=sec
>>>
>>> meaning:
>>>         1. The client retrieves the package http://www.example.org/doc
>>>         2. Unpackages the package in a local cache (or equivalent)
>>>         3. It interprets the fragment 'url=/chap2.html;fragment=sec' by
>>> (per the current specification of packaging) by
>>>                 3.1. identifying the 'part' within the package, yielding
>>> 'chap2.html'
>>>                 3.2. 'chap2.html' is an HTML file; because the server
>>> knows how to identify something within the file with a fragment, ie, it
>>> gets to section 'sec'
>>>
>>> It is important to realize that, in this model, the 'unpackaging' is
>>> done by the client (the browser i.e., the reading system)
>>>
>>> 2. If the package is just 'virtual', ie, all documents are on the Web,
>>> then there is of course a much simpler approach. The URL of the section is
>>>
>>> http://www.example.org/doc/chap2.html#sec
>>>
>>> meaning
>>>         1. The client retrieves the HTML document
>>> http://www.example.org/doc/chap2.html
>>>         2. It knows how to identify something within the HTML file with
>>> a fragment, ie, it gets to section 'sec'
>>>
>>>
>>> Back to the original question: what is the 'canonical' URI with fragment?
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> It should be one of the two above. However, both have issues:
>>>
>>> A. http://www.example.org/doc/chap2.html#sec
>>>
>>> Pro: this is the 'natural', Web way.
>>>
>>> Con 1: *if* the document is, in fact, a real package then there are two
>>> possible approaches to handle this:
>>>
>>> Con 1.1: The *server* handles the unpackaging. Ie, it should be in
>>> position to analyze the URL it receives, realize that there is a 'package'
>>> in between and do an unpackaging. What this would mean is that the client
>>> would have to make requests for all chapters separately, which is not
>>> optimal (although it can of course be cached)/
>>>
>>> Con 1.2: The *client* handles unpackaging. This would require a
>>> different server-client protocol, namely:
>>>         1. The client issues a request to '
>>> http://www.example.org/doc/chap2.html'
>>>         2. The server returns 'http://www.example.org/doc/' as a
>>> package instead of the original chap2.html file (ie, the server should know
>>> that this is part of a package through some redirection)
>>>         3. The client should then unpack and locate the chap2.html file
>>> in the package
>>>         4. the fragment should be identified and handled.
>>>
>>> Steps 1-2-3 is not the current practice on the Web in terms of Web
>>> Architecture: a client does not 'decompose' the 'primary' part of a URL
>>> (beyond separating the server's identification from the part within that
>>> server). It is unclear whether changing that is a viable/acceptable for the
>>> browsers, and for the overal Web Architecture; it certainly requires a
>>> discussion with the TAG.
>>>
>>> Con 2: If the URL is, in fact, a file:///... type one, this means that,
>>> for that case, the unpackaging must be done on the client. Ie, there may be
>>> duplication of functionality with the server and the client, which is not
>>> optimal.
>>>
>>> B.  http://www.example.org/doc#url=/chap2.html;fragment=sec
>>>
>>> Pro: this works for a package.
>>>
>>> For a document on the Web, it may also work if there is a 'conceptual'
>>> entity on the Web for the document. I.e., http://www.example.org/doc
>>> returns some sort of an information to the client that this is, fact, a
>>> 'virtual' package, and then the server can issue a new request to
>>> http://www.example.org/doc/chap2.html and take it from there.
>>>
>>> (Note that, regardless of the original issue, having a 'conceptual'
>>> package handle for a document may not be a bad thing!)
>>>
>>> Con: The URL form is (much) more complex, and may be in danger of being
>>> ignored for documents that are on the Web only.
>>>
>>> Personally, I do not have a clear solution in my head. Hence this mail,
>>> trying to see how we can move on...
>>>
>>> Let me also add another remark, coming originally from Tzviya, just to
>>> add it to the mix: "We need to think about situations such as multiple
>>> authors creating one package or peer review (one or many authors + one or
>>> many editors submit article + data set to journal for review. It undergoes
>>> peer review by one or many reviewers. Journal rejects the article.
>>> Something happens to the reviews, and the package is submitted to a second
>>> journal) and so on.) In scenarios like this, the concept of versioning and
>>> revisioning are a lot more important. It may be covered by OA. I don’t know
>>> that we can resolve versioning with an identifier."
>>>
>>> (Again, apologies to be so verbose…)
>>>
>>> Ivan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----
>>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>>> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>> mobile: +31-641044153
>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> - Nick Ruffilo
>> @NickRuffilo
>> http://Aerbook.com
>> http://ZenOfTechnology.com <http://zenoftechnology.com/>
>>
>>


-- 
- Nick Ruffilo
@NickRuffilo
http://Aerbook.com
http://ZenOfTechnology.com <http://zenoftechnology.com/>
Received on Monday, 1 June 2015 15:04:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:02 UTC