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

Re: Address Bar URI

From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:17:12 +0000
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "<public-lod@w3.org>" <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|aa3eebe29e4f17b29500a04cfd45e711n9HKHb02hg|ecs.soton.ac.uk|B9FA251F-C16E-482F-84A1-A3BBDB11211E@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Hi Jonathan,
It is not my understanding that Linked Data regards Hash URIs as a Bad Thing.
On the contrary - they have been an accepted way of doing things for a while:
and now
both present them as alternatives, and discuss pros and cons of each.
Interestingly the order of presentation changed.
I recall somewhere that in the early days timbl wrote somewhere he thought hans was the better solution, but can't find that at the moment.
I think that within some sections of the Linked Data community (if there is such a Thing), it has become de rigeur to do it 303.
I could speculate on possible interesting social reasons for this, but that would be too much fun :-)

And of course these issues are not really under this subject anymore.

By the way, I should have found this page before I posted my original message - sorry:
which discusses the address bar issue in the context of "normal" pages.


On 18 Oct 2011, at 18:49, Jonathan Rees wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Kingsley Idehen
> <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>> On 10/18/11 11:20 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>> 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?)
>> The issue was, at the time, choosing a URI style for DBpedia that would work
>> with all browsers, including IE 6. Hash URIs would have been problematic
>> since the # crossed the wire. DBpedia modulo IE wasn't an option. The goal
>> was to deliver a Linked Data showcase that worked with all browsers starting
>> with IE 6.
> Do you mean to say: If an HTML document had
> href="http://example.net/doc#frag", and the link were followed, then
> IE6 would send a GET request to example.net, with a request-URI of
> doc#frag?  I find that very hard to believe. I googled around a bit
> and there seem to be lots of fragment id issues with IE6, but I didn't
> see which might apply to linked data.
> I'm not trying to be difficult, I just really don't get what you're saying.
>> I believe the your quests was about a case for 303's. Which is basically
>> another way of seeking a case for slash terminated URIs re. Linked Data
>> deployment.
> Not exactly - I'm trying to build a case against hash URIs. The only
> reason 303s exist is because people for reasons still not clear to me
> don't want to use hash URIs. To relieve the general suffering, one
> possibility would be to advocate for hash URIs. I'm trying to figure
> out whether that's a bad idea.
> I have no idea what you mean about slash terminated URIs, sorry.
> Best
> Jonathan
>> Kingsley
>>> 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
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> President&  CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Hugh Glaser,  
              Web and Internet Science
              Electronics and Computer Science,
              University of Southampton,
              Southampton SO17 1BJ
Work: +44 23 8059 3670, Fax: +44 23 8059 3045
Mobile: +44 75 9533 4155 , Home: +44 23 8061 5652
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2011 19:18:06 UTC

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