W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2011

Re: FragIds in semantic web (ACTION-543)

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 07:15:44 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni.tennison@googlemail.com>
cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1104070554250.23393@wnl.j3.bet>
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Jeni Tennison wrote:

> Hi Larry,
> I have an action (ACTION-543: Propose addition to MIME/Web draft to 
> discuss sem-web use of fragids not grounded in media type) to propose 
> some wording to slot into your "MIME and the Web" draft which I'm taking 
> to be the version at:
>  http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-masinter-mime-web-info-02.html
> You already have a Section 4.6 (Fragment identifiers) which touches on 
> the issue, so I suggest extending that to read something like:
> ---
>  The Web added the notion of being able to address part of an entity
>  and not the whole content by adding a 'fragment identifier' to the
>  URL that addressed the data. Of course, this originally made sense
>  for the original Web with just HTML, but how would it apply to other
>  content types? The URL spec glibly noted that "the definition of the
>  fragment identifier meaning depends on the Internet Media Type", but
>  unfortunately, few of the Internet Media Type definitions included
>  this information, and practices diverged greatly.

In fact, both this text Larry's original text are restricting the 
definition of a fragment.
From RFC3986:
    The fragment identifier component of a URI allows indirect
    identification of a secondary resource by reference to a primary
    resource and additional identifying information.  The identified
    secondary resource may be some portion or subset of the primary
    resource, some view on representations of the primary resource, or
    some other resource defined or described by those representations.
In HTML (without going in the details of javascript handling of 
fragments), it is more a view than a part of the resource, due to the way 
fragment are processed per HTML spec.

>  Content negotiation becomes extremely difficult when the interpretation
>  of fragment identifiers depends on the MIME type as there is no
>  guarantee that the syntax of a fragment identifier that is legal for
>  one MIME type is also legal (or interpreted in an equivalent way) for
>  another MIME type. For example, the common `#identifier` syntax for
>  HTML is not consistent with the XPointer-based syntax defined for XML.

There is already some text about conneg, see 

>  This is exacerbated in common semantic web practice, which not only
>  makes heavy use of content negotiation but in which URLs with fragment
>  identifiers are used to identify real-world Things. In these cases,
>  the URI as a whole is used to identify the real-world Thing, and the
>  fragment identifier does not address a part of any entity, so
>  interpreting the fragment identifier based on the MIME type of whatever
>  entity happens to be returned does not make sense.
> ---

In languages, the same word can be used to identify a concept or an 
instance, based on the context surrounding the word, so the identifier 
itself is not a guarantee of the nature of the word. Why making such 
assertion in frag-URIs ? (there may be a reason, but I don't know it :) )

> Section 5.1.3 (Fragment identifiers) talks briefly about what might be 
> done about fragment identifiers, stating that the problem is that MIME 
> type definitions don't talk about fragment identifiers. I think the 
> problem goes deeper than that because of the inconsistency of 
> interpretation across media types. I think we might want to do something 
> at the level of the URL specification to guarantee support for simple 
> fragment identifiers (ie #identifier) across media types.
> Having read through, I've also got one suggestion and some small 
> editorial fixes.
> The one suggestion is to include somewhere a section that describes the 
> 'application/atom+xml' or 'application/schema+json' pattern (introduced 
> in RFC 3023 I believe) in which there's a generic MIME type 
> (application/xml or application/json) for a meta-language and a syntax 
> pattern for MIME types for languages based on that meta-language. 
> Perhaps it might make sense to have lower/fewer hoops to jump through if 
> you're defining a MIME type for a language based on a meta-language. 
> Maybe there are implications of compatibility between the language and 
> the meta-language in sniffing and the interpretation of fragment 
> identifiers that mean the registration needn't be so detailed.
> The editorial fixes are:
> 1. Introduction: s/are describes./are described./
> 2.1 Origins of MIME: s/Message sent from A to B./Message is sent from A to B./
> 2.2 Introducing MIME into the Web: s/HTTP have minor/HTTP are minor/
> 3.1 Lack of clarity:
>  s/its uses, the meaning/its uses, and the meaning/
>  s/W3C specifications TAG findings and Internet/W3C specifications, TAG findings, and Internet/
> It would be good to have some examples of the incorrect assumptions that this paragraph talks about.
> 3.2 Differences between email and Web delivery
> Can you clarify for me, in the first bullet point where you say 'GET has no content', is that always the case? I can't see the part of HTTP (1.1 or bis) that says this but suspect that's because I'm missing something.
> 3.3 The Rules Weren't Quite Followed:
>  s/that are registration/that are registered/
>  s/sherperding/shepherding/
>  s/Orgnaizations/Organizations/
> 4.4 Evolution, Versioning, Forking:
>  s/litle/little/
>  s/try to insure/try to ensure/
> 5. Recommendations:
>  s/aggreement/agreement/
>  s/to use of MIME/to the use of MIME/
> 5.1.4. Application info: s/section to be clearer/section be clearer/
> Hope this is useful,
> Jeni

Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 11:15:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:38 UTC