Re: #foo URI references

At 18:42 03/06/27 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:

>In the opposite direction to your concerns, I find that the old 
>same-document reference approach is problematic because there is *no way* 
>to specify a fragment relative to the current base URI without also 
>specifying part of the base URI.  (See also my comments at: 
>http://www.apache.org/~fielding/uri/rev-2002/issues.html#017-rdf-fragment)
>
>I think the underlying problem is that this bit of syntax (i.e. bare 
>#frag) is overloaded, and the most useful choice of functionality varies 
>with the use.  Which suggests that a fix to satisfy everybody would 
>require more syntax, but I don't know if that's a good idea, or even possible.

'varies with use' does not automatically imply we need more syntax.
The two uses we know are HTML-like, where it clearly is a same-document
reference, and RDF-like, where it is treated as being relative to the
relevant base. These uses should be distinguishable by context.
And in both cases, there is no reloading of the document: In the
HTML-like case, because it's a same-document reference and we already
have the document, and in the RDF-like case because we can assume
that the document is a copy of the one at the 'base' location, and
therefore reload is unnecessary. So despite the differences, there
is a lot of commonality.

Regards,    Martin.