Re: Using "Punning" to Answer httpRange-14

On 15 May 2012, at 14:53, Michiel de Jong wrote:

> 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.

It's not a problem. 303s a re just a workaround for people who
don't get things right to start. Much better to use #tag uris
for URIs referring to things. It's easier and everybody understands
it. 

303 is for people who started off not wanting to do things right,
and then discovered that they can't put a copyright on their document
anymore because otherwise they would be putting a copyright on the object
they are speaking about.

Simple stupid economic drive and legal problems will make people grok
this one.

Also HTTP-range-14 is close to troll land. I know you don't intend it
but please let's just go with things and stop this discussion. It does
 have a lot of interesting philosophical background, but I don't suppose
you seriously want to read that literature.

> 
> 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.

That's the same with english. What you write can be different from
what you intend to write. 

> 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.

There are a lot of crap pages out there, with broken links pointing
to stupid things. The web is big enough for a lot of crap to exist.
People just stay away from it by not linking to those places.


> 
> 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
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/

Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 15:27:38 UTC