W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2012

Re: HTTP Range 14

From: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 22:41:48 +0000
Message-ID: <4F53EFAC.3050001@ninebynine.org>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: www-tag@w3.org
On 04/03/2012 19:32, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
 > Graham,
 >
 > The problem with new URI schemes is that you can't get browsers to support them.
 > Browsers are the main source of the current problems. [...]

Well,  I wasn't advocating or dismissing any particular solution, just pointing 
out a similarity with an existing proposal.

As for the browsers being the problem... well, maybe I'm out on a limb, but I 
happen to believe there's more to the Web than just browsers.

And as for the infrastructure that "just works" - I guess that's true if you 
don't look too far beyond current capabilities and expectations.  But even 
there, Jonathan's analysis of the issue points out that, among other things, 
there is a lack of clarity in the handling of "landing pages" - one that I've 
run up against but didn't previously recognize as a manifestation of the old 
"HTTP-range-14" problem.

Technically, I believe the current muddle can indeed be made to "just work". But 
the web is more than just a technical system - it's people too.  And I think 
there are times when what people expect diverges from what the technology 
delivers, leading to outcomes that may be technically correct, but not useful in 
the sense of not meeting people's expectations.  If we can find a narrative that 
makes better sense of the present technical architecture, which I think 
Jonathan's recent postings could lead towards, then that will be great.  But 
until then, I won't completely close my mind to alternative solutions, even if 
that means additional URI schemes.

#g
--

On 04/03/2012 19:32, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 3/4/12 1:58 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> Your infra: looks a bit like tdb: [1]. I believe Larry's currently aiming for
>> "experimental" publication so folks can reasonably try it out on the open web.
>
> Graham,
>
> The problem with new URI schemes is that you can't get browsers to support them.
> Browsers are the main source of the current problems. For instance, Linked Data
> (where http: scheme URIs serve as names for any description/descriptor document
> subject) enables browsers effectively play the role of "drill-down" and "pivot"
> oriented clients via the follow-your-nose pattern courtesy of de-referencable
> http: scheme URIs.
>
> As stated in my earlier response, we are practically moving from "open database
> connectivity" to "open data connectivity" where the likes of ms query, access
> crystal reports etc.. work transparently against Linked Data graphs exposed by
> http uris. In addition, you have the benefit of every browser being the
> equivalent of: ms access, ms query, crystal reports etc..
>
> The importance of this transparent integration of the Web into the broad realm
> of "open data access" all depends on http: scheme uris as outlined in the
> fundamental architecture of the Web.
>
> If people don't understand this, then we can double up effort making narratives
> clearer. What we shouldn't do is meddle with architecture and infrastructure
> that "just works".
>
> To conclude, new uri schemes don't fix the problem at hand. Conventional web
> browsers are the fundamental problem.
>
> Kingsley
>>
>> #g
>> --
>>
>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-dated-uri-10
>>
>>
>> On 04/03/2012 17:37, Christopher Gutteridge wrote:
>>>
>>> I've started sketching some ideas I've been thinking about for some time into a
>>> blog post;
>>> http://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/webteam/2012/03/01/firing-range-14/
>>>
>>> I can turn it into something more formal if there's any positive feedback.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 4 March 2012 22:42:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:43 UTC