- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 09:39:05 -0500 (EST)
- To: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, ashok malhotra wrote: > just checked in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/HashInURI-20110228.html > Please review. Especially sections 4,5 and 6. In the introduction, it would be nice to reuse the definition of query and hash from rfc3986 (sections 3.4 and 3.5) like << 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. >> As it clarifies the different usages of fragments in the use cases. In 4 Architectural Questions The question of the accuracy of media type definitions of formats that allows active content (like JS) that can reuse components like the fragment. Usage evolved and HTML or SVG are not only static documents, which is the standpoint of both media type definitions when it comes to fragment. Another issue is the fact that it breaks some assumptions and usages, like "saving a page" as both Safari and Firefox are unable to save such pages and resume from the saved content. Obscurity of data access (how is the displayed data retreived, using GET or not, using HTTP or not (websocket or other), the shift between 'hypertext as the engine' and 'javascript and libraries' as the engine. In 5, for the #!, should it become part of the media type and trigger specific browser behaviour (like on bookmarking, saving etc...) Other comments soon. -- Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras. ~~Yves
Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 14:39:07 UTC