Re: Using "Punning" to Answer httpRange-14

OK, the diagram is very helpful! now we're getting somewhere.

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1ZUzBa4HjNUXg_OeFudwK0XO70VeJRxJoXv4RW2KamhY/edit
>  -- illustration of what happens with names and indirection re. Linked Data

I understand that you say:
- if you want to publish a link to a document, make sure you don't put
a '#' in the URL.
- if you want to publish a link to a sense, make sure that either you
put a '#' in the URL, or you that the URL returns a 303.

So if i build a client based on your diagram, then that means my
client will be compatible with hash-uri-rule camp content, and also
with 303 camp content (provided they never refer to document fragments
or hashbangs), but not with punning camp content.

Given that most people who publish web content (i.e. web designers)
have never heard of 303s and hash-uri-rule, that's a big problem.

Also, it only works for links and not for document elements like
<span> or <h2> which can also be marked up semantically.

Consider an easy example: someone writes a blog, and adds a
'property="author"' attribute to a link the link's href is e.g.
"http://example.com/author.html". According to your diagram, that
means a web page wrote the web page. not what was meant by the
blogger. so then you submit a comment to the blog saying 'hey, your
blog is broken!'. you do this 2 billion times because there is a lot
of content out there on the web. the blogger reads your comment,
learns about linked data, apologizes to you, and quickly phones up
godaddy where her blog is hosted, and ask how to put a 303 on
"http://example.com/author.html". godaddy says they don't know what
she's talking about either, so in the end she opts for the easier
option of changing the link to "http://example.com/author.html#". now
your client works again.

in the end your client will become like the new IE6. people who use it
will have to complain a lot to webmasters, asking them to change
existing content in order to comply with its weird non-mainstream
quirks.

Do you see the problem? Jeni explains this problem in her blogpost. I
find it a convincing argument to stop trying to make 303s and
hash-uri-rule obligatory. the standards should work with the existing
content out there as much as possible. Do you not think so?


Cheers,
Michiel

Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 12:54:16 UTC