W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: TAG resolution on redirection with fragment identifiers

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:03:29 +0100
Message-ID: <4D01ECE1.2080204@gmx.de>
To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 05.12.2010 13:46, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Hi Noah,
>
> thanks for the feedback. Let's see what the current draft says in
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-12#section-9.4>:
>
>
> -- snip --
> Note: This specification does not define precedence rules for the
> case where the original URI, as navigated to by the user agent,
> and the Location header field value both contain fragment
> identifiers.
> -- snip --
>
> We could extend that text like that:
>
> -- snip --
> Note: This specification does not define precedence rules for the
> case where the original URI, as navigated to by the user agent,
> and the Location header field value both contain fragment
> identifiers. Thus be aware that including fragment identifiers
> might inconvenience anyone relying on the semantics of the
> original URI's fragment identifier.
> -- snip --
>
> So this is just a clarification of the current spec's position. Is the
> WG ok with sticking with this position (not specifying the rule)?
>
> Best regards, Julian

Hi,

change applied with 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1097>.

I believe that this ticket can be closed once the next set of drafts is 
published, unless we change our mind and *want* to specify a rule for 
recombination.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 10 December 2010 09:04:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:33 GMT