W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2002

Re: Including 'fragment identifier semantics' in MIME media type registration?

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 16:04:05 +0200
Message-ID: <3210288703.20020905160405@w3.org>
To: www-tag@w3.org, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>

On Thursday, September 5, 2002, 12:52:59 AM, Mark wrote:

>> True but insufficient and possibly misleading.
>> The reason for having multiple locator types is to
>> ensure that one can link into a document where one
>> may have read only rights or for example, the format
>> is not structured, say a binary image.  HyTime/DSSSL
>> designers finally understood that markup is simply
>> YetAnotherNotation and made progress on the issue.
>> XML is YetAnotherNotation.  The format handler type
>> determines the means of resolving the locator but if
>> names cannot be supported (what you call an anchor)
>> as locators, then other types have to be.
>> Encouraging names/ids may be good practice, but not much more.
>> Linking into a binary image or a strip of film or even
>> a position of a book on a library shelf usually requires
>> more than a name.  Not new news.  I do understand the
>> maintenance issues of positional and chained locators.

MN> I agree that such mechanisms are necessary in some systems; I dispute
MN> whether they should be part of the Web architecture.

Just because something is in the web architecture does not mean that
everything has to use it; it means that things that do use it,
however, will use it in the same or similar ways and be more likelyto
be interoperable.

MN> Linking where you have read-only rights isn't robust;

Agreed. Linking to content on a server you don't control is not
robust, either - the content might dissapear in ten minutes. But it is
widely observed to be useful.

MN> unlike with the resource/URI relationship, there is no guidance,
MN> much less guarantee, that a representation's structure is stable
MN> over time.

Since the resource/URI relationship is circular, that does not say
much in practice. In terms of web architecture, if your bank statement
used to be at http://example.com/bank/bullard/len/statement and now is
at http://cgi.example.net/statement?asdf87asd8-f7aft7 then those are
two different and totally unrelated resources each of which is totally
stable over time (but might nit be available at all times and in fact,
one disappeared and the other appeared at the same time). In the real
world of course you would say that the URL of your bank statement had

 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 10:04:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:54 UTC