Re: [closed] non-authoritative syntaxes for fragment identifiers

Hello Roy,

Roy T.Fielding wrote:

> Hello Myriam,
>
> On Sep 27, 2004, at 4:38 PM, Myriam Amielh wrote:
>
>> Thank you for your clarification.  It makes much more sense for those 
>> statements to apply to any URI, regardless of fragment.  I agree that 
>> it is preferable to delete the two sentences from section 3.3.1 
>> [Media types and fragment identifier semantics] to remove the confusion.
>
>
> This section has been updated to reflect your comments
>
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20041021/#media-type-fragid


mmm, well, I'm confused. I thought we agreed that the two sentences:

One may compare URIs with fragment identifiers without a
retrieval action. Parties that draw conclusions about the interpretation
of a fragment identifier based solely on a syntactic analysis of all
or part of a URI do so at their own risk; such interpretations are
not authoritative because they are not licensed by specification.

were leftovers from a prior edit and that they duplicate what is already 
said in sections 2.5. In addition nothing indicates that we are talking 
about non-authoritative syntaxes, so connection with the last sentence 
is not clear.

And in the Editor's Draft 19 October 2004, the second sentence is still 
present (the one starting with 'Parties').

Did I miss something?

Best regards
Myriam

>
>> While we are on the topic of interpreting a fragment identifier, some 
>> W3C recommendations and working drafts such as SVG and the XPointer 
>> use scheme names in their fragment identifiers to assist the 
>> interpretation of the fragment.  For instance, SVG uses 'svgView' 
>> (e.g. http://www.example/file.svg#svgView(...)) and XPointer uses 
>> 'xpointer' (e.g. http://www.example/file.svg#xpointer(...)). Has the 
>> working group considered recommending such practice in AWWW, or do 
>> you consider such recommendation as encouraging "the interpretation 
>> of fragment identifier based on a syntactic analysis on part of a URI"?
>
>
> We have not considered that, primarily because there is a preference
> for media-agnostic identifiers, though you are certainly welcome to
> bring up that discussion on www-tag@w3.org.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roy T. Fielding                            <http://roy.gbiv.com/>
> Chief Scientist, Day Software              <http://www.day.com/>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2004 01:16:36 UTC