- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:30:09 +0000
- To: John Kemp <john@jkemp.net>
- CC: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, www-tag@w3.org
John Kemp wrote: >>> I hear some people want to pass client state around, and treat in general a resource/representation/document as a partial computation or "continuation". I don't think you can do that with HTML5 history alone. And currently, URIs aren't generally treated in such a way as to allow this. There isn't a generally-accepted way of writing a URI that says "the state of a computation at X", although people are makign attempts to use them roughly-speaking in this way. >>> >>> Do we want URIs to be used this way? If so, how should they be formed? >> My opinion: yes, we want URIs to be used to identify states, and they should be formed in the ways that they have always been formed :) It should up to the application designer to determine whether they want to name a particular state with a URI or not, and if so how that URI should be structured. +1 >> Can we try to find an example where something more is needed? > > Personally, I guess the only question I have is whether URIs created in the process of updating browser state may be passed around usefully. If not, why not? And if so, are there any particular practices that made them this way? Perhaps only URIs which can be passed around usefully should be created. This is the approach twitter take, as you browser around their "new" site, you'll note that only recomposable states actually change the address in the bar. There may be a side issue here, to do with media types, in that there's no way to indicate that a particular returned representation requires a client with JS capabilities to be interpreted fully (likewise to indicate contains RDFa) - it's just "text/html" and the requirements needed to process are unknown, or assumed to be present. Best, Nathan
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 16:31:16 UTC