- From: James Whitescarver <jim@eies.njit.edu>
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 12:33:49 -0500
- To: gtn@ebt.com, www-talk@www10.w3.org
I think I responded to the wrong question re: client-side highlighting. Nevenmind. My problem is client-side selection, not highlighting. I do think it's important that we support virtual anchors addressed by an object identifyer rather than a name. Collaborative hypetext will require, for example, that we select text and submit updates. Named anchores should also be capable of addressing a personal or group proxy, e.g. <a name="theFollowingStuff" proxy="http://host.port/cgi/docMgr">stuff</a>. Additionally, the client can route virtual and named anchor references through personal or group proxy servers to provide the functionality the user wants. (in the mean time all requests can be proxied to add personalized functionality). The client will need to create object identifier anchor references for selections that are not named in the source, append the identifier to the get, put, post, annotate, etc., and append the anchor reference to the url. Some operations, such as PUT will require addition data to complete, but this will ultimately be the responsibility of the proxy, and should not be implemented in the client unless the service (e.g. mail, news) is also implimented in the client. some/url#name or some/url##<objectIdentifier> would provide an extensible starting point and furtile soil for server developers of group hypermedia support and other applications that can profit from user selected anchors. A put operation, for example, may propose an edit that anchors existing text to some href somewhere. The server authenticates the user, and files the proposed update accordingly. A personal proxy might indicate the users proposed update on subsequent accesses to the document. A group proxy could show the whole groups proposed links, etc. The public proxy, named in the actual body, p, or a tag, provies the public view of the documents evolution and possible futures. We may want a SELECT in HTTP distinct from GET to present the user the menu of functionality supported by the page/anchor via the various proxies (we'll need rules for well behaived value added proxies). Services that don't use the anchor part of the url, I expect, should ignore it. An ADD-ANCHOR distict from PUT and LINK might be desireable. We don't want to provide dead end text without links, yet anchoring every word does not work if the user wants to select a phrase. The user selected anchor/region provides a general solution independant of the particular application, intuitive to users familiar with cut/copy/paste type functionality. Increasingly we are encoding semantic information in HTML coding of documents. User selected anchors provide a means for application developers to capture, manupulate, and utilize such information. Thw WEB is NOT static documents, it is a dynamic network of information. We need ubiquitious clients with the power to address html segments and maniputate them in an object oriented manner. What I'm suggesting is a start in that direction, so service developers can run amuck and build the knowledge bases of tomorrow. Jim Whitescarver. jim@njit.edu
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 1995 12:33:40 UTC