- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: 26 Sep 2003 16:05:24 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1064606723.1372.15.camel@seabright>
Hello, The 18 September 2003 Editor's Draft of "Architecture of the World Wide Web" is now available at: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030926/ Please note in particular the change to the abstract, based on Roy's recent proposal and subsequent discussion on the list. Complete list of changes: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/changes#changes-20030926 HTML diff: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030926/diffs.html Below is the list of comments I did not take into account for this draft; I anticipate that the TAG will provide direction at the 29 Sep teleconference. Thank you, _ Ian ========================================================== Comments from Stuart http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0128.html 1) SW: Likes Roy's intro text. However, previous comments from DC and TB point to issues they have with that text (e.g., not confined to spanning Internet, not limited to sources and services, etc.). Cf. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/0037 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/0046 See abstract proposed in 26 Sep draft. 2) Endnote 2 requires clarification. This is based on text from Roy. "User agent configurations are usually defined by URI scheme, with exceptions defined by further substring matches within the URI." http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2003Jul/0079 3) Endnote three and use of other protocols than HTTP for http URIs. Reference RFC 2396, section 1.2: "Although many URL schemes are named after protocols, this does not imply that the only way to access the URL's resource is via the named protocol. Gateways, proxies, caches, and name resolution services might be used to access some resources, independent of the protocol of their origin, and the resolution of some URL may require the use of more than one protocol (e.g., both DNS and HTTP are typically used to access an "http" URL's resource when it can't be found in a local cache)." Proposal: Added reference. 4) Cause/effect backwards in describing "link". I must be missing a subtle point. I don't know how (in the Web arch) to detect that two resources are linked until a URI ref appears in a representation. 5) 2.4.1 Secondary Resources... SW: "Knowledge of the media-type associated with a frag-id is implicit in the account given here. This seems to be at odds with the use of URI references as opaque identifiers as typified in RDF/Semantic Web. ie. we only give an account here of the use of fragment ids in relation to a representation with a known media-type" IJ: Does the following sentence which appears in the next paragraph suffice? "The presence of a fragment identifier agent in a URI does not imply that a retrieval action will take place." Or, from [URI]: "As with any URI, use of a fragment identifier component does not imply that a retrieval action will take place. A URI with a fragment identifier may be used to refer to the secondary resource without any implication that the primary resource is accessible. However, if that URI is used in a context that does call for retrieval and is not a same-document reference (section 4.4), the fragment identifier is only valid as a reference if a retrieval action on the primary resource succeeds and results in a representation for which the fragment identifier is meaningful." 6) "For schemes that do specify the use of fragment identifiers..." SW: "It is not within the gift of a URI scheme to specify the use/non-use of fragment identifiers. They are a part of the generic URI syntax, and definition of the frag-id 'semantics' is delegated to media-type specifications, not URI scheme specifications." IJ: I looked at a number of the URI scheme specs to see if I could find any examples of a scheme spec talking about whether frag ids are actually used in URIs for that scheme (e.g., mailto). I found no such statements, so I am deleting the sentence in question. See also comments from TB about use of URI scheme spec (comment 33 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Aug/0046) 7) Good Practice Note: Content Negotiation With Fragments. SW: I prefer the wording of the Good practice note "Content negotiation with fragments" from the current TR page draft: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20030627/#http-conneg-frag 8) 2.5.2 SW: Step 5&6 refer to "Content-type field": s/field/header/ Looking at RFC2616, I find, for example in 9.2: "If the OPTIONS request includes an entity-body (as indicated by the presence of Content-Length or Transfer-Encoding), then the media type MUST be indicated by a Content-Type field." No change. 9) 2.6 Persistence and Ambiguity No text proposed; no change. 10) 4.5 Binary and Textual Data Formats SW: "I wonder if some of the current discussion re text/*+xml and application/*+xml should be reflected here. The bias in 4.5 is to promote XML as textual data format, so perhaps some careful words are in order around the TAG disposition wrt text/*+xml. Maybe a forward reference to 4.10.6 would cover some of this." There is a forward ref in first sentence. Not sure what else to add before more discussion in TAG. ================================== Comments from Norm http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0110.html 11) Present table of notes after TOC as three lists. 12) Choose a different icon (smaller) to indicate story. Roy seems to concur. 13) 1.1 feels out of place. 14) Section 2.4.1, fourth bullet of first bulleted list: NW: s/is "U#fragid"./is "U#fragid" when the resource retrieved is in format "F"./ IJ: I don't see why retrieval is required. 15) 2.5.2 NW: Delete "Remember that search engines may follow such links." IJ: I think this reminder is helpful. ================================== Comments from Norm http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0116.html 16) Section 2.6: a) Doesn't like ambiguity example; too linked to httpRange-14. b) Moby Dick example unclear, "beached". ================================== Comments from David http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0117.html 17) Definitions of terms and diagram illustrating their relationships. IJ: I would like to have a series of diagrams that progress from simple to more complete. I am not sure that all relationships should appear in the same diagram. -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Friday, 26 September 2003 16:05:29 UTC