- From: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:31:54 +0200
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- CC: Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Silvia, Michael
Indeed, we haven't scribed a formal RESOLUTION regarding this choice as
far as I remember, but we agree on that during the Ghent face to face
meeting, as the minutes let that suppose. Further,
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Syntax#Decisions have
captured the decision.
> We never really captured the decision that was made for choosing "#"
> as the fragment identifying mechanism over "?". I think we will need a
> brief discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of these two
> approaches in the WD and an explanation of when to choose what. This
> needs to be more than the one sentence written in 6.1.
Absolutely! More precisely, we need to specify what's happened if the
'segment' is obtained with a hash ('#') or a question mark ('?') since
out grammar is now flexible.
- In the case of the '#': the single or dual step partial GET as
described currently
- In the case of the '?': the normal behavior, it is a new resource
that will be completely served with a 200 OK response code. The only
extra specification we may add is a link header to point towards the
original resource the segment comes from ...
I suggest to write that down in the next iteration of the WD :-)
Raphaël
--
Raphaël Troncy
CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science),
Science Park 123, 1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands
e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093
Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312
Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2009 10:32:39 UTC