- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:29:13 -0500
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- CC: www-tag@w3.org
On 3/9/2011 3:37 PM, Jeni Tennison wrote: > I don't understand why we should particularly pick on the > query as an alternative to the fragment identifier? (Oh, I > see that in Noah's original suggestion, he did say 'and perhaps > other parts of a URI'.) Good catch, you're absolutely right, and I've updated the last section of the blog posting at [1]. To paraphrase your point, I had created a false dichotomy between "#" and "?"; the interesting choice is whether or not to use fragments. Once you decide not to then, as you say, the syntactic mechanisms of RFC 3986 should be used in the intended manner, with the path component for hierarchial identification and/or query strings for non-hierarchical. The main point stands, however: I continue to claim that URIs with fragments are, in the long term, likely to have the problems we see with hasb-bang; conversely, once changes like the HTML5 history API are deployed, URIs without fragments can be used at the client and at the server, with control available over when page loads occur. I believe that such non-fragment URIs will continue, in most cases, to be the right ones to use for Web documents, whether or not an Ajax client is used to present those documents. Noah [1] http://blog.arcanedomain.com/2011/03/identifying-documents-in-web-applications/
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 15:29:44 UTC