- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:25:01 +0200
- To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Frank Ellermann wrote: > Julian Reschke wrote: > >> Hm, looking at >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-01>, >> I don't see "ifragment" mentioned anywhere... > > It's in section 3.1: > > | Relationship values are URIs that identify the type of link. If > | the relationship is a relative URI, its base URI MUST be considered > | to be <http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations.html#>, and > | the value MUST be present in the link relation registry. > > Roughly anything after the first # in an IRI is a <ifragment>. I > had RFC 4287 atom:link in mind, that talks about IRIs. Mark's I-D > is for HTTP => URIs, I should have written <fragment>, sorry. > ... Aha. I consider this a bug in Mark's draft. The base URI should IMHO stay the same as in RFC4287. BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 20 June 2008 11:25:42 UTC