Re: temporal URI fragments (was: URIBOF at IETF meeting S.F.)

----- Original Message -----
From: <Silvia.Pfeiffer@csiro.au>

> There
> are two reasons why we would like to stick with the fragment component:
>
> 1) With the temporal offsets we are not querying any databases nor are
> we composing a previously non-existent Web resource. All we are doing is
> addressing a subpart of a Web resource. It is my understanding that that
> was the original intention of creating the fragment component and
> therefore we should make use of it.
I believe that the intent of a fragment was to address a subpart of a
retrieved representation.
By definition it is offset from the start of the local data that was
actually received, not offset from the start of the remote data.

If you address anything on the Web, it is a resource. Whether it is also
related to another resource (a 'sub-part') is immaterial.


> The question then boils down to: what is it that we have to change in
> the "URI generic syntax" standard to enable our suggested use of
> temporal fragments? As it turns out: not much!
I think a lot changes, and unnecessarily so.

> While this usage prescriptions may be appropriate for html pages, it is
> not good for Web resources that consist of large volume data, of which
> the user is only interested in receiving a small subpart.
Then make that small sub-part addressable. Problem solved.
You write a server that enables access to sub-parts (required for both
approaches) via a URI & nobody else changes any code and it all works.

How about using a ';' character instead of '#'?

Received on Friday, 21 March 2003 02:26:05 UTC