Re: Description of the 2-ways and the 4-ways handshake

On Fri, 1 May 2009, David Singer wrote:

> At 12:31  +0200 29/04/09, Raphaël Troncy wrote:
>> 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
>
> I think, rather
> ? -- it is the server's syntax and task to do the selection

In fact if "?" is needed, our fragment syntax is just a hint, people 
owning their URIs can define whatever naming scheme they want, the main 
issue is finding the association between identification of useful ranges 
someone awnts to retrieve and URIs

> # -- it is the MIME type's syntax and UA's task to do the selection, possibly 
> assisted by an enhanced protocol with the server
>
> That is, if the UA is asked to focus the user's attention on a certain 
> portion of the resource, it should do the best it can
> a) to do said focusing
> b) to use the network and server wisely
>
> If the protocol is HTTP-1.1-enhanced, then there may be new commands or 
> headers it can use.  In the lack of that (e.g. HTTP 1.1 or even 1.0) it does 
> the best it can.

HTTP-1.1-enhanced ?
Adding a range unit is in the same class of adding a new content-type, 
that doesn't really qualify as "enhancing" HTTP :)

>
>>   - 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/
>
>
> --
> David Singer
> Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves

Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 07:55:45 UTC