Message-ID: <08c801bd45f9$35dc86a0$29019784@ssun.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> From: "Sam Sun" <ssun@CNRI.Reston.VA.US> To: "Al Gilman" <email@example.com>, <uri@Bunyip.Com>, Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 11:35:27 -0500 Subject: Relative URI vs. #fragment. (was Re: [URN] #fragment as :name) >This is an observation, not a proposal. > >It appears to me that the established uses of #fragment with HTML >documents, and the proposed extensions with XML documents (which >are designed to be compatible with the HTML-driven uses) are all >cases where what follows the # character is a name reference. > >It is a reference to a name defined in a namespace which is in >turn defined by the object identified in the preceding name. >It is a "classic case of namespace descent." The spelling might >as easing be scheme:stuff:fragment where stuff comprises the ><site> and <path> parts in conventional URL usage. > >It is the fact that ID and NAME are both attribute designators >from a common namespace that lets Lynx treat IDs in HTML in a >manner "homologous to #name" and extend the scope of #name to >include #[name | id] with no damage whatsoever. > I think it might be helpful to add that the “#fragment” and relative URI are two kind of entities within any certain name and are processed differently. For example, href=”relative-uri” is processed by binding “relative-uri” to its base-uri, and sending the complete URI across the wire. But for href=” foo:aaa#bbb”, according to the current URI draft, the “#bbb” would be cut off from the URI reference (since it’s not part of URI), and only the “foo:aaa” get sent over the wire.