Some comments on HashInURI

Somme comments on reading

The abstract is more of an introduction tan an abstract, which should be a compressed summary of the whole document, someone who is up on the subject can read it and in some cases save reading the document.   Maybe something like:

"The Hash in a URI was originally used to introduce a static "fragment identifier",
but recently is used in many more complex ways as it is set by and interpreted by
javascript in the web application. It is used to provide all kinds of parameters
to the client-side application, such as the actual URI of a video to be played, to a video
player, or the position and zoom, to a map. Unlike search parameters introduced by "?", the bit in the URI bar after the hash can be changed without causing the page to be reloaded. 
Applications and toolkits doing this often go to some effort to keep a history, and for the back button to work as expected. Accessibility and search are both hurt because without running javascript, the URI has no meaning, and quite different information is presented.
This use of the "fragment identifier" field has interesting and different properties, and
differs from the way it is currently described in specs."

I wouldn't confuse this issue with the fact that
the "fragment identifier" name is a misnomer. (sorry!)
It was always supposed to be a local identifier or view or whatever
is available in the language of the page.
So, for SVG or VRML a viewport, for RDF an arbitrary abstract thing.
That understanding, though some still are misled
The fragid is a 

	local identifier or expression in the language of the document

We have just had the argument as to whether language 
of an application/rdf+xml document was RDF or XML.
This is still one of the  I hope we see javascript get fragids soon
so I can cll it remotely. (When webize javascipt?  http://www.3org/DesignIssues/Webize)
But I digress.

2.1.1 para 1 last sentence is a muddle. It has least one period missing, and two
many unbound definite and indefinite articles.  Is it just saying that most js in web apps is loaded dynamically and if so where does that effect the issue -- that it is even less fathomable. (Not just turing complete but web turing complete -- the set of things which can be figured out by a turing machine with an infinite tape and a web browser? ;-)

- - - - -  interrupted, unfinished.

Received on Thursday, 9 December 2010 16:17:26 UTC