Re: '#' in mailto URIs

Terrific, thank you!

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
10/16/2009 01:05 PM
 
        To:     noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
        cc:     Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "jwz@jwz.org" 
<jwz@jwz.org>, "PUBLIC-IRI@W3.ORG" <PUBLIC-IRI@w3.org>, "Michael A. Puls 
II" <shadow@shadow2531.com>
        Subject:        Re: '#' in mailto URIs


Thanks to everybody for their contributions to this discussion.

I have added

 >>>>>>>>
Note that this specification, like any URI scheme specification, does
not define syntax or meaning of a fragment identifier, because these
depend on the type of a retrieved representation. In the currently
known usage scenarios, a 'mailto' URI cannot be used to retreive
such representations. Therefore, fragment identifiers are meaningless,
SHOULD NOT be used on 'mailto' URIs, and SHOULD be ignored upon
resolution. The character '#' in hfvalues MUST be escaped as %23.
 >>>>>>>>

to my internal version.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2009/10/15 6:54, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> Martin Dürst wrote:
>
>> The text that I might put in (if we think we need some) is:
>>
>>   >>>>
>> Note that this specification, like any URI scheme specification, does
>> not define syntax or meaning of a fragment identifier, because these
>> depend on the media type of the retrieved resource. In the currently
>> known usage scenarios, a 'mailto' URI does not serve to retreive a
>> resource with a media type. Therefore, fragment identifiers are
>> meaningless, SHOULD NOT be used on 'mailto' URIs, and SHOULD be ignored
>> upon resolution.
>>   >>>>
>
> So, this reminds me of an aspect of RFC 3986 that I find surprising.  It
> says [1] :
>
>>     The fragment identifier component of a URI allows indirect
>>     identification of a secondary resource by reference to a primary
>>     resource and additional identifying information.  The identified
>>     secondary resource may be some portion or subset of the primary
>>     resource, some view on representations of the primary resource, or
>>     some other resource defined or described by those representations. 
A
>>     fragment identifier component is indicated by the presence of a
>>     number sign ("#") character and terminated by the end of the URI.
>>
>>        fragment    = *( pchar / "/" / "?" )
>>
>>     The semantics of a fragment identifier are defined by the set of
>>     representations that might result from a retrieval action on the
>>     primary resource.  The fragment's format and resolution is 
therefore
>>     dependent on the media type [RFC2046] of a potentially retrieved
>>     representation, even though such a retrieval is only performed if 
the
>>     URI is dereferenced.  If no such representation exists, then the
>>     semantics of the fragment are considered unknown and are 
effectively
>>     unconstrained.  Fragment identifier semantics are independent of 
the
>>     URI scheme and thus cannot be redefined by scheme specifications.
>
>
> What surprises me in the above is the specific reference to media types.
> If I hadn't read the above, I would have assumed that the Web worked
> something like this:
>
> * Resources are identified with URIs, each of which has a scheme
> * For some such URIs, protocols such as HTTP can be used to retrieve
> representations of the resource
> * For the representation to be usable, it will typically be necessary 
for
> the protocol to convey (explictly or implicitly) the type of each such
> representation.  In the case of HTTP, typing is done using media types
> [RFC 2046], but other protocols may use different typing schemes.
>
> The quote form RFC 3986 seems to imply that media types are the only
> supported typing mechanism for media types, regardless of the protocol
> used for retrieval.  I understand that we are also trying to achieve a
> situation in which fragment identifier resolution is defined with 
respect
> to the type of the representation, not the URI scheme or retrieval
> protocol.  Still, I would have thought it should say something like:
>
> "The semantics of a fragment identifier are defined by the set of
> representations that might result from a retrieval action on the
> primary resource.  The fragment's format and resolution is therefore
> dependent on>the type<  of a potentially retrieved representation>(media
> type [RFC2046] in the case of HTTP retrievals)<, even though such a
> retrieval is only performed if the URI is dereferenced.
>
> Martin: given what's in 3986, your specific reference to media type is 
OK,
> I guess, but it still feels strange to me in the context of mailto.  I
> also find it somewhat more appropriate to speak of retrieving
> representations than retrieving resources.  Therefore, I wonder whether 
it
> might be a little better to say (changes marked with>...<):
>
> ---Proposed---
> Note that this specification, like any URI scheme specification, does
> not define syntax or meaning of a fragment identifier, because these
> depend on the>type of a retrieved representation<. In the currently
> known usage scenarios, a 'mailto' URI>cannot be used to retreive
> such representations<. Therefore, fragment identifiers are meaningless,
> SHOULD NOT be used on 'mailto' URIs, and SHOULD be ignored upon
> resolution.
> ---End Proposed---
>
> Noah
>
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt
>
>
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Larry Masinter<masinter@adobe.com>
> Sent by: uri-request@w3.org
> 10/14/2009 01:31 PM
>
>          To:     "Martin J. Dürst"<duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "Michael A.
> Puls II"<shadow@shadow2531.com>
>          cc:     "jwz@jwz.org"<jwz@jwz.org>, "PUBLIC-IRI@W3.ORG"
> <PUBLIC-IRI@w3.org>, (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
>          Subject:        RE: '#' in mailto URIs
>
>
> What about encouraging URI/IRI scheme registrations to
> say about whether fragment identifiers are necessary,
> important, useful, allowed.
>
> mailto: could then disallow # fragment identifiers.
>
> Larry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Martin J. Dürst" [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 9:37 PM
> To: Michael A. Puls II
> Cc: Larry Masinter; jwz@jwz.org
> Subject: Re: '#' in mailto URIs
>
> This is some very old mail. The current mailto: draft doesn't contain
> anything about fragment identifiers. Should it?
>
> The text that I might put in (if we think we need some) is:
>
>   >>>>
> Note that this specification, like any URI scheme specification, does
> not define syntax or meaning of a fragment identifier, because these
> depend on the media type of the retrieved resource. In the currently
> known usage scenarios, a 'mailto' URI does not serve to retreive a
> resource with a media type. Therefore, fragment identifiers are
> meaningless, SHOULD NOT be used on 'mailto' URIs, and SHOULD be ignored
> upon resolution.
>   >>>>
>
> Regards,   Martin.
>
> On 2008/04/02 6:32, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
>> <!--"charset=utf-8"-->
>> On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:18:27 -0400, Larry Masinter<LMM@acm.org>  wrote:
>>
>>>> So, it sounds like, in short, you're saying that Safari and Firefox
>>>> shouldn't use # that way because it's reserved for future use in
> mailto
>>>> URIs.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you could explicitly note that in your next draft?
>>> It isn't reserved "for future use", it's just not allowed.
>> Martin said that # is *always* a fragment identifier. If it's not
>> allowed, ever, then you're saying that mailto URIs don't support
>> fragment identifiers and won't ever support fragment identifiers 
because
>> # is not allowed. (Which would make sense to me)
>>
>> If that's true, then a raw # that is found in a mailto URI (even though
>> it's not allowed) would not be anything special and could just be
>> accepted literally (if you were not going to throw an error).
>>
>> That would make sense to me.
>>
>> However, if mailto URIs support fragment identifiers or might support
>> fragment identiers in the future, then # and everything after it in the
>> URI needs to be ignored (at least by the mail client itself when 
parsing
>> and filling in the compose fields).
>>
>> What I got from Martin's response is that mailto URIs (like http URIs)
>> support fragment identifiers. It's just that no client *currently* 
makes
>> use of them in any way for 'mailto'.
>>
>> Basically, I just need to be sure what to do with a raw # in a mailto
>> URI (even if it's an error).
>>
>>> Not every possible string has to have an interpretation.
>> I don't know what you mean by that sentence or what it pertains to.
>> Please clarify.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp

Received on Friday, 16 October 2009 19:01:29 UTC