URL query should be hidden from page header

[michielbdejong]

on https://michielbdejong.inrupt.net/profile/card?query the title should be 'card', not 'card?query' on https://michielbdejong.inrupt.net/public/?query the title shoud be 'public', not '?query'

[kidehen]

Hi @michielbdejong, https://michielbdejong.inrupt.net/profile/card?query identifies some entity of type doc (specifically, a http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/PersonalProfileDocument instance) .

Why? Due to 200 OK re the following:

curl -I  https://michielbdejong.inrupt.net/profile/card?query
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
X-Powered-By: solid-server
Vary: Accept, Authorization, Origin
Access-Control-Allow-Credentials: true
Access-Control-Expose-Headers: Authorization, User, Location, Link, Vary, Last-Modified, ETag, Accept-Patch, Accept-Post, Updates-Via, Allow, WAC-Allow, Content-Length, WWW-Authenticate
Allow: OPTIONS, HEAD, GET, PATCH, POST, PUT, DELETE
Link: <card.acl>; rel="acl", <card.meta>; rel="describedBy", <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource>; rel="type"
WAC-Allow: user="read",public="read"
MS-Author-Via: SPARQL
Updates-Via: wss://michielbdejong.inrupt.net
Content-Type: text/turtle; charset=utf-8
Content-Length: 2
ETag: W/"2-nOO9QiTIwXgNtWtBJezz8kv3SLc"
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 20:37:36 GMT
Connection: keep-alive

Thus, you could label it "Document about {Whatever-You-Choose}" . Ditto <https://michielbdejong.inrupt.net/public/?query> for the very same reasons.

Viewing both documents also make this clear via the default Data Browser to which the pages resolve.

I hope that helps.

[megoth]

@kidehen I'm a bit confused, are you saying that we should not remove the query as part of the title shown in the data browser?

I think is a bit weird to see when you access https://megoth.solid.community/public/?query for example (ignoring the other bug that reloads the data browser twice).

[michielbdejong]

I also didn't understand @kidehen's point very well, by saying that we can choose what ?query stands for (which I think is true but orthogonal), are you saying you think that we should close this issue and keep the current behaviour?