This document explores the issues that arise from these new uses of fragment identifiers, and attempts to define best practices.
This document has been developed for discussion by the W3C Technical Architecture Group and is being published as a Public Working Draft in order to get additional input from the Web community. This version, dated 15 January, 2011 is a follow-up to the previous version dated November 30, 2010.
Publication of this draft finding does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time.
2 Use Case Scenarios
2.1 Addressing Into Multimedia Streams -- CNN
2.1.1 Things to Note
2.1.2 Extrapolating From This Pattern
2.1.3 Architectural Questions
2.2 Creating URIs for Media Fragments
2.3 Interaction State and Browser History
2.4 AJAX Libraries And State Management
2.5 Web Command Lines
2.6 The Naked Hash-Ref
3 Manipulating Browser History
4 Recommended Best Practices
5 These Patterns Violate Existing Specifications
6 Affected Communities To Liaise With
This document explores the issues that arise in this context, and attempts to define best practices that help:
This document discusses only the situations where fragment identifiers are used with HTTP. Fragment identifiers can be used with other protocols such as FTP where they may have different semantics. These situations are not discussed here.
In this document we use the term "URI" to indicate both URLs and URIs.
This section discusses several usage scenarios that make innovative use of fragment identifiers as URI parameters on the Web.
When publishing multimedia streams, there is often a need to address into specific points in the multimedia stream, e.g., by using a time-index. The simplest means of doing this is to pass in the start-time as a query parameter in the URI to the server, e.g.
http://www.example.com/media.stream?start=03:06:09 and have the server start streaming the content starting at 3 hours, 6 minutes and 9 seconds into the content. This has the additional side-benefit of creating distinct URIs for each point in the media stream and such URIs can be used to bookmark locations of interest.
It is also possible to leverage client-side parameters encoded as part of the URI (using a # ), where this pseudo fragment identifier is used by client-side scripts as an argument to be passed to an appropriate locator function. Consider the following example taken from cnn.com:
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2008/02/19/vo.aus.sea.spider.ap"> Giant sea spider filmed deep underwater </a>
CNN uses links like the above for all the topical video segments that are published on its site. The URI in this case has the following components:
The fragment identifier in this pattern is intentionally refrerred to as a client parameter.
Treating it as a regular fragment identifier in this usage would result in one incorrectly inferring that the URI for the video resource being addressed is
This would result in all the video links on the CNN site getting the same URI.
Thus, the entire URI in this case is
A consumer of this URI who goes looking for an
id within the Response that matches the #-suffix of this URI will fail.
The reported Content-Type for the resource is
text/html. However, the behavior of the
#-suffix in this case is not defined by the HTML specification.
As used, the
#-suffix is a first-class client parameter in that it gets consumed by a script that is served as part of the HTML document returned by the server upon receiving a GET request.
This embedded script examines the URI available to it as script variable
content.location, strips off the # and uses the rest of the prefix as an argument to function that generates the actual URI.
Having constructed this content URI, the script then proceeds to instruct the browser to play the media at the newly constructed location.
The CNN example cited above is not unique with respect to its use of
# within the URI for encoding parameters to the receiving application. It shows that in a world of dynamic documents, the traditional fragment identifier need no longer be an
idref value that addresses an existing node in the serialized HTML making up the HTTP Response. In addition to possibly being a static
idref, the fragment identifier in the URI, the pattern demonstrated here generalizes to the following:
idrefto a dynamically generated node.
This section discusses some of the architectural questions raised by this design pattern:
text/htmlmight assume (incorrectly) that the URI for this video resource is
The Media Fragments Working Group at W3C is developing a specification to address
spatial and temporal media fragments on the Web: [Media Fragments URI 1.0].
As the title of the specification states, the objective is to create URIs for
media fragments. This is done by using fragment identifiers. For example:
http://www.example.org/video.ogv#t=60,100. In this case, the user agent knows that the primary resource is http://www.example.org/video.ogv and that it is expected to display the portion of the primary resource that relates to the fragment #t=60,100, i.e. seconds 60 to 100. The syntax is very rich and allows media fragments for be identified along a number of different dimensions.
The fragment identifiers are constructed as name-value pairs separated by the
The relationship between the primary resource and the secondary resource is, in these cases, quite complicated. Selection of the fragment may involve decompression, mapping fragment ranges to byte offsets and other complex calculations. Depending on the format and the capabilities of the user agent, some of this may be done at the user agent and some at the server. Retrieval of the primary resource may be accomplished using several requests to conserve bandwidth and adapt to network conditions.
In some cases, for optimization reasons or because the user agent cannot perform the fragment to byte mapping, only the bytes required for the fragment are retrieved directly from the server. HTTP header extensions are used to accomplish this.
In summary: the [Media Fragments URI 1.0] specification does create URIs for media fragments using fragment identifiers but the derivation of the secondary resource from the primary resource is complex and specialized to the type of the media stream and the storage format. This is discussed further is 5 These Patterns Violate Existing Specifications.
A variety of methods are available in Web Architecture to save application state. Cookies store information on the client-side that is sent along with the GET request. Similarly, data can be stored on the server-side -- in a database, for example, identified by a cookie -- and can be used to change the details of the GET request. There are also specifications under development (See [Web Storage]) that extend the cookie mechanism in several directions. These specifications allow large amounts of data to be stored on the client and can also be used to encode application state.
These mechanisms, however, encode private applications states.
In some cases, an application may want to allow selected states to be made public
and shareable. For this we require a URI, appropriately decorated with client-side and server-side parameters. The challenge in designing a mechanism to encode state
is to preserve the familiar user experience especially to
make the back button do the right thing. For live examples of this design pattern, see GMail and Google Maps both of which take extreme care to ensure that the user's expectations of
Web interaction are preserved. These applications use
iframe proxies to achieve the desired effect.
A very early interactive Web application was the [Xerox Parc Map Viewer]. When you bring up the application it shows you, by default, a map of the world. If you select a spot on the map it changes to show you a map centered on the selected spot. Users can interact with the map in various ways: pan, zoom, select degree of detail, etc. Each interaction is encoded as a parameter in a URL which is sent back to the server who generates a new map and refreshes the page. The format of the URL is:
If you work with Google Maps you
will notice that even after you have customized the map to show you what
you want, the
address bar has not changed - it still says
http://maps.google.com/. If you want a link to the displayed map, you click the "Link" button on the right and it gives you a URI to the map displayed. For example:
GMail, on the other hand, uses fragment identifiers to encode the state. For example,
identifies the inbox and a specific piece of mail in the inbox. If a piece of mail
is not selected, the fragment identifier merely identifies the inbox:
AJAX applications use features of Dynamic HTML (DHTML) to create highly reactive user experiences. Updates to the Web user interface in response to user actions no longer require a full page reload. Consequently, the user can perform a sequence of interaction steps while remaining on the same page at least as seen from the browser's perspective of
content.location. This makes for a good user experience, except for the following:
Today, many of the details of AJAX programming have been abstracted away by higher level toolkits such as [Dojo AJAX Toolkit] and [google-gwt]. Management of interaction state and browser history is one of the key affordances implemented in these libraries. History mechanisms in AJAX libraries like GWT and Dojo share a lot in common, and the approach can be traced back to Really Simple History (RSH). In addition, the mechanism described here has also been adopted by a recent update to GMail.
The basic premise is to keep track of the application's internal state in the URI fragment identifier. This works because updating the fragment doesn't typically cause the page to be reloaded. This approach has several benefits:
bookmarkablei.e., the user can create a bookmark to the current state and save it, email it, or whatever.
One of the techniques that is used to provide this functionality is to open a number
of frames within a browser window. In such an architecture, parent and child frames
are allowed to change each others'
location URI as long as the frames
information from the same domain or have agreed to collaborate by some other
means. Otherwise, changing a frame's
location URI opens up a cross-site scripting hole.
If the frames can collaborate, then one of the frames, say the parent, passes data to
the child via a fragment identifier by reseting the child's
location URI. Thus, given a parent frame
P and a child frame
C , where the location URIs
U_C may come from different domains, the parent frame might pass data to the child by resetting its location URI to
U_C#data; the child picks up this data by polling for changes in its location URI. This technique is used in Comet Programming. As an example, the [Dojo AJAX Toolkit] uses an
IFrame proxy to enable cross-domain XML HTTP Requests. this is a useful technique when writing cross-site mashups. As an example, see XKCD and AxsJAX a cross-site mashup that mashes together XKCD comics with their associated transcripts to create a speech-friendly XKCD experience.
When applications are built from Web parts, there is often a need to configure them when the application is launched. Traditional applications would call these default start-up or command-line options. We see the equivalent emerging for configuring desktop gadgets and widgets where command-line options are passed in via URI parameters in this context, the URI is the Web command-line. For one sample implementation and its associated usage, see Using URIs To Pass Parameters To The Web. Dave Raggett's HTMLSlidy uses URIs of the form
...#(nn) to address into a deck of slides.
Similarly, [Superfeedr] allows you to subscribe to a fragment of a
document using a fragment identifier, for example,
In some situations a single
# sign is used as the value of the
# as the value of the
href attribute appears to be to avoid anything showing up on the browser status bar as the user activates the link. Note that this idiom also creates significant hurdles for non-mouse users of the Web.
HTML5 introduced the
which allow you to add and modify history entries, respectively.
These methods work in conjunction with the
window.onpopstate. event. These facilities
allow for changing URIs in history so that the URI exposed to copy-and-paste can still make sense in contexts without scripting. It can also be used to address the back button concern.See, for example, Manipulating Browser History.
Applications that choose to make some states public and shareable should use fragment identifiers to identify such staes.
Not surprisingly, some of these new uses of fragment identifiers violate existing specifications. [RFC 3986] says: "The fragment identifier component of a URI allows indirect identification of a secondary resource by reference to a primary resource and additional identifying information. ... The semantics of a fragment identifier are defined by the set of representations that might result from a retrieval action on the primary resource. The fragment's format and resolution is therefore dependent on the media type [RFC2046] of a potentially retrieved representation ..."
For HTML and XML the fragment identifier processing rules are defined in [RFC 2854] and [XPointer] respectively. The fragment identifeir is, essentially, a pointer into a document and must match an element ID or "name". The CNN content stream is HTML and, thus, its fragment processing violates [RFC 2854].
The media fragments case is a bit different. There are no media types defined for audio or video and, as they point out, many media type specifications do not specify fragment identifier processing rules. Thus, they do not explicitly violate [RFC 3986] although the relationship between primary and secondary resources is quite a bit more complex than [RFC 3986] descibes. In some cases, though, they fetch the fragment directly from the server rather than selecting it on the client.
We will need to liaise effectively with standards groups that are active in defining the formats and protocols that come together in turning an HTTP Response into an interactive user interface for a Web application. This section will be used to track these dependencies, and may be removed upon final publication of this document.
The WhatWG that presently defines the behavior of conforming HTML5 Web browsers in conjunction with the W3C HTMLWG. There is also ongoing HTTP work in the IETF.
As the Web has evolved from showing things to doing things the fragment identifier has been repurposed to indicate a broad range of functionality. This document discusses some of these uses. We would be grateful for comments and feedback showing other uses of the fragment identifier.