W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > July 2003

RE: temporal URI fragments

From: <Silvia.Pfeiffer@csiro.au>
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 16:12:05 +1000
Message-ID: <FC026A0F0EE43E42A6EE465E2C7FFF7801285496@coxs-nh.nsw.cmis.CSIRO.AU>
To: LMM@acm.org, asgilman@iamdigex.net, duerst@w3.org, Silvia.Pfeiffer@csiro.au
Cc: Silvia.Pfeiffer@csiro.au, uri@w3.org, Conrad.Parker@csiro.au
Dear Larry, Martin, Al, all,

I don't understand, Larry - why do you believe that the proposal does not
work with current HTTP (RFC 2616) and RTSP? We have implemented it with
current standard-conformant software and have not had to change anything in
the protocols. Could you please explain your reasoning in more detail?

I am currently travelling through Europe and will be attending the IETF
meeting in Vienna in two weeks. I am more than happy to discuss the temporal
URI fragment proposal in person with anybody else attending. Drop me an
email if you're there.

Best Regards,

Silvia.


-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Masinter
To: 'Al Gilman'; 'Martin Duerst'; Silvia.Pfeiffer@csiro.au
Cc: Silvia.Pfeiffer@csiro.au; uri@w3.org; Conrad.Parker@csiro.au
Sent: 26.06.2003 02:10
Subject: RE: temporal URI fragments

I think I now understand that most of this proposal is
dependent on updating HTTP (RFC 2396) and RTSP (RFC 2326)
to allow fragment identifiers in the request URI.

I can see that they've managed to produce a demonstration
where doing so "works" with a HTTP server, but I don't
think it's a good idea.

No matter what the syntax of the fragment identifier.

Larry
Received on Sunday, 6 July 2003 02:12:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:31 GMT