- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:30:25 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 20/04/2013, at 5:28 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2013-04-20 06:07, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> P1 sections 2.7.1 and 2.7.2 define the HTTP and HTTPS URI schemes without fragment identifiers. >> >> While it's true that HTTP sends these URIs without fragids "on the wire" in the request-target, the schemes *do* allow fragids pretty much everywhere else they're used (including some places in HTTP, e.g., the Location header). >> >> Given that this is going to be the definition for these URI schemes, and we already require that the fragid be omitted in the request-target, shouldn't the syntax allow a fragment identifier? > > No. > > Fragment identifiers are allowed for *any* URI scheme; the scheme definition doesn't need to include it. Then why do we include query? -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 20 April 2013 07:30:57 UTC