- 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
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