W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > October 2011

RE: Address Bar URI

From: Michael Smethurst <Michael.Smethurst@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:12:23 +0100
Message-ID: <7A44633A0AA27A4A98B94B10BDF0AC3554C447@bbcxues27.national.core.bbc.co.uk>
To: "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org>, "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: <public-lod@w3.org>
I don't seem to be doing a such good job at lurking but I'd thought the current argument against fragment ids was you always get a 200 (so long as the information resource they hang off exists). So:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006m86d#teddybearsandtrainsets

returns a 200 but that programme has nothing to say about teddy bears and train sets


-----Original Message-----
From: public-lod-request@w3.org on behalf of Jonathan Rees
Sent: Tue 10/18/2011 4:20 PM
To: Kingsley Idehen
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Subject: Re: Address Bar URI
 
Wow, this is new information for me that the redirect-to-hash issue
would bear on this question, so this is interesting.

However I must be dense since I don't see how it applies. The scenario
I'm talking about is: I want an RDF URI for something. I mint a URI
A#it, publish a document at A explaining what A#it means, and I think
I'm done. Then something really bad happens, and I attribute the
evilness to the use of hash, and I swear off ever using hash again.
Luckily there is 303 as a backup, and I'm willing to pay the extra
round trip overhead to avoid the hash badness, since the badness is so
bad.

I know about Dublin Core's use of redirect-to-hash, but it's being
used to implement hashless URIs, not hash URIs. My question is why the
need to use hashless URIs for this use is felt in the first place. (In
DC's case it was legacy, but few people on this list are dealing with
pre-2005 URIs.)

What is the "really bad" thing that happened? (And what could it
possibly have to do with redirects?)

Thanks
Jonathan

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> On 10/18/11 7:54 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>
>> Can someone remind me why people are using 303 at all, as opposed to
>> hash URIs in the #_ or #it pattern?
>>
>> I've been trying to make a compelling case for 303 over hash, without
>> much success.
>>
>> What would be most valuable is war stories, especially ones that
>> answer questions that have been left unanswered in the previous thread
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Sep/0003.html and in
>> the writeup http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/issue57/latest/#hash
>>
>> Thanks
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>
> I think that had a lot to do with IE and the desire to boostrap Linked Data
> in a manner that worked across all browsers.
>
> Links:
>
> 1.
> http://jamespreston.co.uk/Articles/RedirectingIE6ToUrlWithFragmentIdentifier.html
> -- here is a 2007 post about the problem
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> President&  CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
					
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2011 17:16:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:21:17 UTC