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

Re: Address Bar URI

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:27:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CACHXnaqsYNPbn6k-EF6vx4w4OF6dJntjyXEbj7-=0Uv+3FvC2g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Smethurst <Michael.Smethurst@bbc.co.uk>
Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-lod@w3.org
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Michael Smethurst
<Michael.Smethurst@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> 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

Thanks - I had actually heard this one before but it wasn't on my
list. I'll add it.

I'm still having a hard time being persuaded by this - i.e. the
inconvenience of poor misspelling detection outweighing the
inconvenience of the 303 redirect. I don't deny that this is real, but
I still feel I'm being asked to accept the seriousness of the problem
on faith.. (Again, this could be mitigated in Javascript, if it were a
serious issue.) Is this really the reason that so many people have
decided against hash? Surely I'm missing something else...

Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2011 17:27:55 UTC

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