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

Re: Fragment Identifiers and Agent Perspectives

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:14:35 +0100
To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5b62jwn4zo.fsf@calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk>
Noah Mendelsohn writes:

> On 10/7/2011 7:11 PM, ashok malhotra wrote:
>> Currently, the specs say "fragment identifier semantics are defined by the
>> media type".
>> We should amend this to say "fragment identifier semantics are defined by
>> the media type and
>> the kind of agent that is making use of the markup".
>
> I understand the proposal, but I'm not convinced it's good
> architecture. Webarch [1] distinguishes direct and indirect
> identification, making clear that a given URI should be a first class
> identifier for at most one resource. If the same URI is to be used to
> identify something else as well, then the identification is viewed as
> indirect.

I'm glad you get all that from [1], but I sure don't.  How is a
_server_ supposed to know whether the identification is primary or
secondary?  What does this mean:

  "Globally adopted assignment policies make some URIs appealing as
   general-purpose identifiers. Local policy establishes what they
   indirectly identify."

Global wrt what?  Local wrt what?  Why _isn't_ what has been suggested
a case of specifying how indirect identification might work?

ht

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#indirect-identification
-- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Monday, 10 October 2011 17:15:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:40 UTC