ISSUE-3: Does our MF URI syntax imply that we need to update MIME Type registrations?

media type handling

Does our MF URI syntax imply that we need to update MIME Type registrations?

State:
CLOSED
Product:
Raised by:
Michael Hausenblas
Opened on:
2009-01-28
Description:
In [1] Michael argued that whenever we talk about URI semantics, we need to start with RFC3986 section 3.5:

'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, even
though such a retrieval is only performed if the URI is dereferenced. If
no such representation exists, then the semantics of the fragment are
considered unknown and are effectively unconstrained. Fragment identifier
semantics are independent of the URI scheme and thus cannot be
redefined by scheme specifications.'

Further, from RFC2046 we learn that the MIME Type Registrations (taking a JPG still image as an example) for JPEG 2000 (ISO/IEC15444) is specified in RFC3745 where no fragments are defined, hence the general rules from RFC3986 apply.

Do we need to update all registries of targeted media types or are we fine with sticking to the fallback rule from RFC3986 ('If no such representation exists, then the semantics of the fragment are considered unknown and are effectively unconstrained.')?

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Jan/0043.html
Related Actions Items:
Related emails:
  1. Re: ISSUE-3 (mhausenblas): Does our MF URI syntax imlpy that we need to update MIME Type registrations? (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-08-20)
  2. ISSUE-13 (fragment-iana-registration): Write a IETF draft for proposing how to register the fragment scheme for all media types (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2009-08-20)
  3. RE: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 19 August, Telecon 1200 UTC (from davy.vandeursen@ugent.be on 2009-08-19)
  4. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 19 August, Telecon 1200 UTC (from michael.hausenblas@deri.org on 2009-08-18)
  5. Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 19 August, Telecon 1200 UTC (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-08-18)
  6. Regrets: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 12 August, Telecon 1200 UTC (from golivrin@meraka.org.za on 2009-08-12)
  7. Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 12 August, Telecon 1200 UTC (from erik.mannens@ugent.be on 2009-08-11)
  8. RE: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 5 August, Telecon 1200 UTC (from davy.vandeursen@ugent.be on 2009-08-04)
  9. Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 5 August, Telecon 1200 UTC (from erik.mannens@ugent.be on 2009-08-04)
  10. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 29 July, Telecon 1200 UTC (from michael.hausenblas@deri.org on 2009-07-29)
  11. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 29 July, Telecon 1200 UTC (from silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com on 2009-07-29)
  12. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 29 July, Telecon 1200 UTC (from michael.hausenblas@deri.org on 2009-07-28)
  13. RE: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 29 July, Telecon 1200 UTC (from davy.vandeursen@ugent.be on 2009-07-28)
  14. Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 29 July, Telecon 1200 UTC (from erik.mannens@ugent.be on 2009-07-28)
  15. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 22 July, Telecon 1200 UTC (from michael.hausenblas@deri.org on 2009-07-22)
  16. Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 22 July, Telecon 1200 UTC (from erik.mannens@ugent.be on 2009-07-22)
  17. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 15 July, Telecon 1200 UTC (from conrad@metadecks.org on 2009-07-15)
  18. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 15 July, Telecon 1200 UTC (from silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com on 2009-07-15)
  19. Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 15 July, Telecon 1200 UTC (from erik.mannens@ugent.be on 2009-07-15)
  20. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 24 June, Telecon 1200 UTC (from tmichel@w3.org on 2009-06-24)
  21. Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 24 June, Telecon 1200 UTC (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-06-24)
  22. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 17 June, Telecon 1200 UTC (from michael.hausenblas@deri.org on 2009-06-17)
  23. Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 17 June, Telecon 1200 UTC (from erik.mannens@ugent.be on 2009-06-17)
  24. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 10 June, Telecon 1200 UTC (from michael.hausenblas@deri.org on 2009-06-10)
  25. RE: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 10 June, Telecon 1200 UTC (from davy.vandeursen@ugent.be on 2009-06-10)
  26. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 10 June, Telecon 1200 UTC (from ylafon@w3.org on 2009-06-09)
  27. Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 10 June, Telecon 1200 UTC (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-06-09)
  28. minutes of 2009-05-20 teleconference (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-05-20)
  29. RE: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 20 May, Telecon 1200 UTC (from erik.mannens@ugent.be on 2009-05-19)
  30. Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 20 May, Telecon 1200 UTC (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-05-19)
  31. RE: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 13 May, Telecon 1200 UTC (from erik.mannens@ugent.be on 2009-05-13)
  32. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 13 May, Telecon 1200 UTC (from michael.hausenblas@deri.org on 2009-05-13)
  33. RE: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 13 May, Telecon 1200 UTC (from davy.vandeursen@ugent.be on 2009-05-13)
  34. Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 13 May, Telecon 1200 UTC (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-05-12)
  35. minutes of 2009-04-29 teleconference (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-04-29)
  36. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 29 April, Telecon 1200 UTC (from conrad@metadecks.org on 2009-04-29)
  37. RE: Results of the media type review regarding fragment identifier (semantics) (from erik.mannens@ugent.be on 2009-04-29)
  38. Re: Results of the media type review regarding fragment identifier (semantics) (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-04-29)
  39. RE: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 29 April, Telecon 1200 UTC (from davy.vandeursen@ugent.be on 2009-04-29)
  40. Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 29 April, Telecon 1200 UTC (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-04-29)
  41. Re: Results of the media type review regarding fragment identifier (semantics) (from silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com on 2009-04-19)
  42. Re: Results of the media type review regarding fragment identifier (semantics) (from michael.hausenblas@deri.org on 2009-04-19)
  43. Re: Results of the media type review regarding fragment identifier (semantics) (from silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com on 2009-04-19)
  44. Results of the media type review regarding fragment identifier (semantics) (from michael.hausenblas@deri.org on 2009-04-18)
  45. minutes of 2009-04-08 teleconference (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-04-08)
  46. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 08 April, Telecon 1200 UTC *NEW HOUR* (from conrad@metadecks.org on 2009-04-08)
  47. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 08 April, Telecon 1200 UTC *NEW HOUR* (from michael.hausenblas@deri.org on 2009-04-07)
  48. Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 08 April, Telecon 1200 UTC *NEW HOUR* (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-04-07)
  49. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 01 April, Telecon 0900 UTC (from conrad@metadecks.org on 2009-04-01)
  50. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 01 April, Telecon 0900 UTC (from michael.hausenblas@deri.org on 2009-04-01)
  51. Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 01 April, Telecon 0900 UTC (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-03-31)
  52. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 25 March, Telecon 0900 UTC: ONE HOUR EARLIER !!! (from silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com on 2009-03-25)
  53. Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 25 March, Telecon 0900 UTC: ONE HOUR EARLIER !!! (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-03-24)
  54. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 18 March, Telecon 0900 UTC: ONE HOUR EARLIER !!! (from michael.hausenblas@deri.org on 2009-03-18)
  55. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 18 March, Telecon 0900 UTC: ONE HOUR EARLIER !!! (from silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com on 2009-03-18)
  56. RE: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 18 March, Telecon 0900 UTC: ONE HOUR EARLIER !!! (from davy.vandeursen@ugent.be on 2009-03-17)
  57. Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 18 March, Telecon 0900 UTC: ONE HOUR EARLIER !!! (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-03-17)
  58. Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 11 March, Telecon 0900 UTC: ONE HOUR EARLIER !!! (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-03-10)
  59. Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 11 March, Telecon 0900 UTC: ONE HOUR EARLIER !!! (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-03-10)
  60. Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 11 March, Telecon 0900 UTC: ONE HOUR EARLIER !!! (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-03-10)
  61. minutes of 2009-03-04 teleconference (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-03-04)
  62. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 04 March, Telecon 1000 UTC (from silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com on 2009-03-04)
  63. Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 04 March, Telecon 1000 UTC (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-03-04)
  64. minutes of 2009-02-25 teleconference (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-02-25)
  65. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 25 February, Telecon 1000 UTC (from michael.hausenblas@deri.org on 2009-02-24)
  66. Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 25 February, Telecon 1000 UTC (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-02-24)
  67. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 81 February, Telecon 1000 UTC (from michael.hausenblas@deri.org on 2009-02-17)
  68. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 81 February, Telecon 1000 UTC (from silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com on 2009-02-17)
  69. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 81 February, Telecon 1000 UTC (from ylafon@w3.org on 2009-02-17)
  70. Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 81 February, Telecon 1000 UTC (from silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com on 2009-02-17)
  71. Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 81 February, Telecon 1000 UTC (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-02-16)
  72. Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 11 February, Telecon 1000 UTC (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-02-10)
  73. Re: Feb 13 Hypertext CG: Topic will be Test Suites (from michael.hausenblas@deri.org on 2009-02-05)
  74. Re: Minutes of 2009-02-04 telecon (from michael.hausenblas@deri.org on 2009-02-04)
  75. Re: Minutes of 2009-02-04 telecon (from silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com on 2009-02-04)
  76. Minutes of 2009-02-04 telecon (from michael.hausenblas@deri.org on 2009-02-04)
  77. Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 04 February, Telecon 1000 UTC (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-02-03)
  78. Re: ISSUE-3: Does our MF URI syntax imply that we need to update MIME Type registrations? (from silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com on 2009-01-30)
  79. Re: ISSUE-3: Does our MF URI syntax imply that we need to update MIME Type registrations? (from michael.hausenblas@deri.org on 2009-01-29)
  80. Re: ISSUE-3: Does our MF URI syntax imply that we need to update MIME Type registrations? (from silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com on 2009-01-29)
  81. ISSUE-3 (mhausenblas): Does our MF URI syntax imlpy that we need to update MIME Type registrations? (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2009-01-28)
  82. minutes of 2009-01-28 teleconference (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-01-28)
  83. ISSUE-3: Does our MF URI syntax imply that we need to update MIME Type registrations? (from Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl on 2009-01-28)

Related notes:

[mhausenblas]: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/3

28 Jan 2009, 10:56:42

See MF WG wiki page http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Semantics

Michael Hausenblas, 1 Feb 2009, 10:10:27

discussion with TimBL on swig, see http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2009-02-01#T11-52-02

Michael Hausenblas, 1 Feb 2009, 12:14:43

[mhausenblas]: Does our MF URI syntax imply that we need to update MIME Type registrations?

4 Feb 2009, 10:39:35

HarryH proposal http://www.w3.org/2009/02/06-swcg-minutes.html#item03

Michael Hausenblas, 17 Apr 2009, 13:32:45

Added the review at http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/MediaTypeReview

Michael Hausenblas, 18 Apr 2009, 14:13:08

The ACTION-89 [1] and the new ISSUE-13 [2] raised allows to close this issue

[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/89
[2] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/3

Raphaël Troncy, 20 Aug 2009, 09:10:05

Changelog:

Created issue 'Does our MF URI syntax imlpy that we need to update MIME Type registrations? ' nickname mhausenblas owned by Michael Hausenblas on product , description 'In [1] Michael argued that whenever we talk about URI semantics, we need to start with RFC3986 section 3.5:

'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, even
though such a retrieval is only performed if the URI is dereferenced. If
no such representation exists, then the semantics of the fragment are
considered unknown and are effectively unconstrained. Fragment identifier
semantics are independent of the URI scheme and thus cannot be
redefined by scheme specifications.'

Further, from RFC2046 we learn that the MIME Type Registrations (taking a JPG still image as an example) for JPEG 2000
(ISO/IEC15444) is specified in RFC3745 where no fragments are defined,
hence the general rules from RFC3986 apply.

Do we need to update all registries of targeted media types or are we fine with sticking to the fallback rule from RFC3986 ('If no such representation exists, then the semantics of the fragment are considered unknown and are effectively unconstrained.'

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Jan/0043.html' non-public

Michael Hausenblas, 28 Jan 2009, 10:28:26

title changed to 'Does our MF URI syntax imply that we need to update MIME Type registrations? '

Raphaël Troncy, 28 Jan 2009, 13:44:23

Issue dissociated from any product

Raphaël Troncy, 28 Jan 2009, 13:44:23

Description changed to 'In [1] Michael argued that whenever we talk about URI semantics, we need to start with RFC3986 section 3.5:

'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, even
though such a retrieval is only performed if the URI is dereferenced. If
no such representation exists, then the semantics of the fragment are
considered unknown and are effectively unconstrained. Fragment identifier
semantics are independent of the URI scheme and thus cannot be
redefined by scheme specifications.'

Further, from RFC2046 we learn that the MIME Type Registrations (taking a JPG still image as an example) for JPEG 2000 (ISO/IEC15444) is specified in RFC3745 where no fragments are defined, hence the general rules from RFC3986 apply.

Do we need to update all registries of targeted media types or are we fine with sticking to the fallback rule from RFC3986 ('If no such representation exists, then the semantics of the fragment are considered unknown and are effectively unconstrained.'

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Jan/0043.html'

Raphaël Troncy, 28 Jan 2009, 13:45:10

Issue dissociated from any product

Raphaël Troncy, 28 Jan 2009, 13:45:10

Description changed to 'In [1] Michael argued that whenever we talk about URI semantics, we need to start with RFC3986 section 3.5:

'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, even
though such a retrieval is only performed if the URI is dereferenced. If
no such representation exists, then the semantics of the fragment are
considered unknown and are effectively unconstrained. Fragment identifier
semantics are independent of the URI scheme and thus cannot be
redefined by scheme specifications.'

Further, from RFC2046 we learn that the MIME Type Registrations (taking a JPG still image as an example) for JPEG 2000 (ISO/IEC15444) is specified in RFC3745 where no fragments are defined, hence the general rules from RFC3986 apply.

Do we need to update all registries of targeted media types or are we fine with sticking to the fallback rule from RFC3986 ('If no such representation exists, then the semantics of the fragment are considered unknown and are effectively unconstrained.')?

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Jan/0043.html'

Raphaël Troncy, 28 Jan 2009, 13:45:43

Issue dissociated from any product

Raphaël Troncy, 28 Jan 2009, 13:45:43

Issue dissociated from any product

Michael Hausenblas, 1 Feb 2009, 10:10:27

Issue dissociated from any product

Michael Hausenblas, 1 Feb 2009, 12:14:43

Issue dissociated from any product

Michael Hausenblas, 17 Apr 2009, 13:32:45

Issue dissociated from any product

Michael Hausenblas, 17 Apr 2009, 13:32:57

nickname changed to ''

Raphaël Troncy, 17 Apr 2009, 14:36:26

Issue dissociated from any product

Raphaël Troncy, 17 Apr 2009, 14:36:26

Issue dissociated from any product

Michael Hausenblas, 18 Apr 2009, 14:13:08

nickname changed to 'media type handling'

Michael Hausenblas, 18 Apr 2009, 14:14:06

Issue dissociated from any product

Michael Hausenblas, 18 Apr 2009, 14:14:06

Issue dissociated from any product

Raphaël Troncy, 20 Aug 2009, 09:10:05

Status changed to 'closed'

Raphaël Troncy, 20 Aug 2009, 09:10:05


Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@eurecom.fr>, Erik Mannens <erik.mannens@ugent.be>, Chairs, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>, Staff Contacts
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: index.php,v 1.323 2013-12-19 14:47:09 dom Exp $