Usage Patterns For Client-Side URL parameters

W3C Working Draft: TAG Finding 15 April 2009

This version:
Latest version:
Latest Version
T. V. Raman <raman@google.com >

This document is also available in these non-normative formats: XML.


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:

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.

Status of this Document

<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 ).

Table of Contents

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

1 Introduction

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.

2 Use Case Scenarios

This section enumerates the various usage scenarios that are leading to innovative uses of client-side URL parameters on the Web.

2.1 Addressing Into Multimedia Streams

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

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

2.1.1 Things To Note

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 a script in 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 is http://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 an id within the Response that matches the #-suffix of this URL 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 URL 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 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.

2.1.2 Extrapolating From This Pattern

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 idref to a dynamically generated node.
A parameter to be consumed by the application that is delivered as the HTTP Response to the original GET request.

2.1.3 Architectural Questions

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 a Content-Type of text/html might assume (incorrectly) that the URL for this video resource is http://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?

2.2 Interaction State And Browser History

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.

2.3 AJAX Libraries And State Management

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's bookmarkable — i.e., the user can create a bookmark to the current state and save it, email it, or whatever.

2.4 Web Command Lines

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.

2.5 Passing Data Among Frames

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.

2.6 The Naked Hash-Ref

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.

3 Recommended Best Practices

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.

4 Affected Communities To Liaise With

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.

5 Conclusions

This section will be completed when this finding is ready for final publication as an officially approved TAG Finding.

6 Pending Work

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.

6.1 WhATWG: PushState()

Here is a link to a proposal that is the topic of ongoing discussion in the WHATWG for encoding client-side state.
Editorial noteMay 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().

7 Open Issues

8 References

Mail thread on WWW-TAG from 2007 that initiated some of these discussions. (See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0148.html.)
JSONP: JSON With Padding (See http://ajaxian.com/archives/jsonp-json-with-padding.)
Comet Programming from Wikipedia (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_(programming).)
Mark Birbeck: Using URLs To Pass Parameters To The Web (See http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2007/11/using-urls-to-pass-parameters-to-web.html.)
Google Web Toolkit — Java software development framework that makes writing AJAX applications like Google Maps and GMail easy for developers taking care of browser and platform details. (See http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/.)
Toward 2^W — Beyond Web-2.0, T. V. Raman, Communications Of The ACM, ACM, New York. (See http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1461945.)
The Javascript Toolkit by the Dojo Foundation. (See http://dojotoolkit.org/.)