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

Re: TAG resolution on redirection with fragment identifiers

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 05:59:28 -0500 (EST)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1012130556490.22103@wnl.j3.bet>
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:

> 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)?

As some browsers are already using a default rule in the case of HTML, 
either we delegate to the HTML specification, or we define a rule for HTML 
fragment ourselves (bad, IMHO), or we define a default rule if nothing 
else is applicable (probably the best option).

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Monday, 13 December 2010 10:59:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:34 GMT