- From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 12:58:09 +0200
- To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
- Cc: URI <uri@w3.org>, Apps-discuss list <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
On 9 July 2011 05:34, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: Skipping the i18n and security considerations until I see a new I-D one quick addition: >> an unencoded "#" starts the fragment and is interpreted >> (or ignored) by clients depending on the document. [...] > This will also be included in the draft. Thanks. My comment almost missed the point, the fragment depends on the document <add> type, it does not depend on the URI scheme </add>. In the times of "hashbang URIs" it might be necessary to be as clear as possible about this: Fragments are one of the subtle differences between STD 66 and its predecessors (incl. RFC 1738). For my privacy concerns pick something that does not upset John or SM -- I'm almost sure that we want the same thing from different points of view (server admin vs. FTP user, with "popular" browsers hiding or not offering any choice).
Received on Saturday, 9 July 2011 10:59:03 UTC