This document is also available in these non-normative formats: XML.
Copyright © 2009 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply.
Designers of URLs
      have traditionally used 
      ?
       to encode
      server-side 
       parameters. At its inception, the Web
      also introduced fragment identifiers (preceded by 
      #
      )
      as a means of addressing specific locations in a document. As
      highly interactive applications get built using Web parts (HTML,
      CSS and JavaScript component resources that are themselves Web
      addressible  —  see 
      [tvr-cacm2009], there is an
      increasing need for encoding interaction state as part of the
      URL. The Web is beginning to discover and codify design patterns
      based on fragment identifiers for many of these use cases.
      
This draft finding is being prepared in response to TAG issue #60 . This document explores the issues that arise in this context, and attempts to define best practices that help:
Create URLs for intermediate pages in a Web application so that the back button does the right thing
Enable clients to address into specific points in a stream of content, e.g., video.
The goal of this finding is to initially collect the various usage scenarios that are leading to innovative uses of client-side URL parameters, along with the solutions that have been developed by the Web community. When this exercise is complete, this finding will conclude by ensuring that these design patterns are mutually compatible. If some of these usage patterns are identified as being in conflict, we will recommend best practices that help side-step such conflicts. We encourage the wider Web community to point us at emerging usage scenarios and design patterns so that we maximize our chances of arriving at a final finding that helps move forward the architecture of the Web in a self-consistent manner.
<strong>This document is now developed in hash-in-uri.xml *DONOTEDIT THIS File!</strong> 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 April 15, 2009 is a follow-up to the previous version dated March 20, 2008. Sections that need additional work are intentionally left as empty place-holder sections so that the Web community gets a sense of where we would like to take this document.
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.
Please send comments on this finding to the publicly archived TAG mailing list www-tag@w3.org ( archive ).
1 Introduction
      
2 Use Case
      Scenarios
      
    2.1 Addressing Into Multimedia
        Streams
        
        2.1.1 Things To Note
          
        2.1.2 Extrapolating From This Pattern
          
        2.1.3 Architectural
          Questions
          
    2.2 Interaction State And Browser History
        
    2.3 AJAX Libraries And State Management
        
    2.4 Web Command Lines
        
    2.5 Passing Data Among Frames
        
    2.6 The
        Naked
         Hash-Ref
        
3 Recommended Best Practices
      
4 Affected Communities To Liaise With
5 Conclusions
      
6 Pending Work
    6.1 WhATWG: PushState()
7 Open Issues
      
8 References
      
At the beginning of the Web, we decided to encode
      server-side
       URL parameters with a 
      ?
      . At
      the same time, the Web adopted 
      #
       to attach fragment
      identifiers to URLs so that user-agents could address into
      specific locations in an HTML document. Nearly 20 years later,
      the Web has built a strong set of conventions around how URL
      parameters are used. As transactional applications began moving
      on to the Web in the late 1990's, server-side parameters formed a
      core building block for how application state was communicated
      between client and server. In this phase of Web evolution,
      clients were still comparatively simple, and client-side URL
      parameters did not move beyond the use of fragment
      identifiers. But with Web 2.0 applications increasingly moving
      traditional client-side applications to the Web, we are now
      seeing a variety of design patterns beginning to emerge with
      respect to how client-side URL parameters are used in order to
      influence client interaction. The need to remain consistent with
      the prevalent Web architecture has seen these design patterns
      build on the existing mechanism of fragment identifiers in
      URLs. This finding enumerates the various emerging patterns along
      with their associated use cases as a means of documenting
      existing practice on the Web.
      
This section enumerates the various usage scenarios that are leading to innovative uses of client-side URL 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 server-side parameter in the URL,
        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 URLs for each point
        in the media stream and such URLs can be used to bookmark
        locations of interest. 
        
It is also possible to leverage
        client-side parameters encoded as part of the URL (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 URL in this case has the following components:
| Component | Value | 
|---|---|
| Protocol | http | 
| Host | www.cnn.com | 
| Path | video | 
| Client Param | #/video/tech/2008/02/19/vo.aus.sea.spider.ap | 
The browser is expected to do a GET of the URL leading up to the fragment, and the processing application, in this case, the JavaScript embedded in the HTML Response processes the portion of the URL following the
#.
Note that in the general case, the JavaScript function that eventually processes the client param may not have been present in the original HTTP Response it may come from a Javascript library that was loaded as the result of a subsequent HTTP GET request as a result of ascriptin the text/html response.
The fragment identifier has been intentionally identified as a client parameter .
Treating it as a regular fragment identifier in this usage would result in one incorrectly inferring that the URL for the video resource being addressed ishttp://www.cnn.com/video.
This would result in all the video links on the CNN site getting the same URL.
Thus, the entire URL in this case is http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2008/02/19/vo.aus.sea.spider.ap
A consumer of this URL who goes looking for anidwithin the Response that matches the#-suffixof this URL will fail.
The reported Content-Type for the resource istext/html. However the behavior of the#-suffixin this case is not defined by the HTML specification.
As used, the#-suffixis a first-class client parameter in that it gets consumed by ascriptthat is served as part of the HTML document returned by the server upon receiving a GET request.
This embedded script examines the URL available to it as script variablecontent.location, strips off the#and uses the rest of the prefix as an argument to function that generates the actual URL.
Having constructed this content URL, the script then proceeds to instruct the browser to play the media at the newly constructed location.
Notice further that the behavior of a user-agent that does not execute the embedded JavaScript is different given this URL. Notice further that the HTTP Response headers do not give the client any indication that this is likely to be so.
The CNN example cited above is not unique with respect to
          its use of 
          #
           within the URL 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 URL, the pattern demonstrated here generalizes
          to the following:
An
idrefto a dynamically generated node.
A parameter to be consumed by the application that is delivered as the HTTP Response to the original GET request.
This section enumerates some of the questions raised by this design pattern:
What if the returned HTML contains an element that has the same fragment ID as the one being used as a client-side parameter — who wins?
What should the correct behavior be in the face of such conflicts?
(1) To scroll down to that element
(2) play the video
(3) Error message
(4) Do nothing?
What happens if the receiving client does not implement JavaScript, or has had scripting turned off?
Until now, URLs have been equally useful to browsers and non-browser consumers. this pattern demonstrates a case where the URL inferred by browsers vs non-browsers is different . A non-browser that receives a URL as in the above, and sees aContent-Typeoftext/htmlmight assume (incorrectly) that the URL for this video resource ishttp://www.cnn.com/video.html.
A related fragment id meaning arises when one considers content-negotiation. For instance:
a) get application/rdf+xml "http://example.com/exp/#something"
b) get text/html "http://example.com/exp/#something"
Given that the fragment identifier leads to a subsequent request, who should process the error response if one should be raised by that subsequent request?
AKA 
        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 
        back button
         works as
        the user would expect. These applications use  
        iframe
        
        proxies to achieve the desired effect.
        
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:
Recording key points in the interaction flow, e.g., for bookmarking.
Providing intuitive behavior for the browser's history mechanism.
Snapshoting interaction state so that one can return to a partially completed task at a later time.
Today, many of the details of AJAX programming have been abstracted away by higher level toolkits such as Dojo [dojo] and [google-gwt]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 url fragment identifier. This
          works because updating the fragment doesn't typically cause the
        page to be reloaded. This approach has several benefits:
It's about the only way to control the browser's history reliably.
It provides good feedback to the user.
It'sbookmarkable— i.e., the user can create a bookmark to the current state and save it, email it, or whatever.
When applications
        can be built of Web parts, there is a need to configure them at
        the point 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
        URL parameters  —  in this context, the URL is the Web
        command-line. For one sample implementation and its associated
        usage, see 
        Using
        URLs To Pass Parameters To The Web
        . Dave Raggett's 
        HTMLSlidy
         uses
        URLs of the form 
        ...#(nn)
         to address into a deck of
        slides.
        
Web applications that use multiple frames often need to pass
        data between them. This problem gets even more interesting when
        the child frame displays content from a domain different from
        that of its parent. In this case, the parent and child frames do
        not share any script context  —  that would open a cross-site
        scripting hole. A common technique that is used where the parent
        and child have mutually agreed to collaborate is for the parent
        to pass data to the child via a fragment identifier by reseting
        the child's 
         location
         URL. Thus, given a parent
        frame 
        P
         and a child frame 
        C
        , where the
        location URLs 
        U_P
         and 
        U_C
         come from
        different domains, the parent frame might pass data to the child
        by resetting its location URL to 
        U_C#data
        ; the child
        picks up this data by polling for changes in its location
        URL. This technique is common 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.
        
As the final item in the
        usage scenarios 
        as seen on the Web
        , this section
        documents the use of a single 
        #
         sign as the value of
        the 
        href
         attribute on HTML anchors. This can be
        thought of as a 
        relative URL
         with a
        null
         fragment identifier. Web sites wishing to
        override the 
        default-target
         behavior of anchors use
        this when attaching a JavaScript event-handler to anchor elements
        for mouse-clicks. The only justification to place a naked
        #
         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.
        
This section will be populated upon completion of this finding. Note that the preceding sections have identified design patterns without prejudice — with a view to enumerating the pros and cons of the various idioms seen on the Web today.
It is clear that we will need to liaise effectively with standard 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.
The HTTP work in the IETF.
This section will be completed when this finding is ready for final publication as an officially approved TAG Finding.
This section will track pending work items, including technical proposals currently in existence within and outside the W3C that are relevant to this issue. As we continue to finalize this work, these pending items will move into relevant sections of this document from being editorial notes in this section.
Here is a link to a proposal that is the topic of ongoing discussion in the WHATWG for encoding client-side state.
| Editorial note | May 11, 2009 | 
| Proposal pushState() allows for changing the whole URL using ECMAScript so that the URL exposed to copy-and-paste can still make sense in contexts without scripting. It also addresses the back button concern — see pushState(). | |