W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > March 2004

Re: fragment prose proposal

From: Adam M. Costello BOGUS address, see signature <BOGUS@BOGUS.nicemice.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 05:14:06 +0000
To: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040311051406.GC24855~@nicemice.net>

Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com> wrote:

> URIrefs with fragids are "second class" web URIs because they force
> one into the domain of "document retrieval" simply to interpret them.

URIs identify resources, so there must be a conceptual function g that
maps URIs to resources.  We can impose a constraint on that function:

    g must be separable into g1 and g2 such that
    for all URIs of the form scheme:stuff#frag
    g(scheme,stuff,frag) = g2(g1(scheme,stuff),frag)

In other words,

      primary resource r1 = g1(scheme,stuff)
    secondary resource r2 = g2(r1,frag) = g(scheme,stuff,frag)

There is no need to talk about retrieval or representation in order
to express this separability constraint.  The key is that g1 does
not depend on frag, and g2 depends on r1 itself, not on the URI used
to identify r1 (there might be several URIs that identify r1 using
different schemes).  [Concrete examples involving retrieval and
representation are still helpful for building intuition.]

This is just a formal restatement of Larry Masinter's succint "the
important bit is that the fragment identifier is not used in the
scheme-specific processing of the URI."

AMC
http://www.nicemice.net/amc/
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2004 00:14:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:32 GMT