W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > May 2011

Re: Discussion of Blob URI Scheme for Binary Data Access | IETF

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 22:49:54 +0200
Message-ID: <4DDC19F2.3090405@gmx.de>
To: arun@mozilla.com
CC: uri@w3.org
On 2011-05-16 19:04, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
> ...
>> "blob = scheme ":" opaqueString [fragIdentifier]"
>>
>> The fragment identifier should not be part of the scheme definition.
>>
>
> OK -- I think your suggestion is to maybe have a separate section that
> discusses fragments? Is that really necessary? Is that a convention or a
> stylistic preference? Since fragments are optional, I've only included
> them for completeness. What do I gain by a separate section that
> discusses fragments?
> ...

I just came across 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.4.3> which 
says...:

"4.3. Absolute URI

Some protocol elements allow only the absolute form of a URI without a 
fragment identifier. For example, defining a base URI for later use by 
relative references calls for an absolute-URI syntax rule that does not 
allow a fragment.

    absolute-URI  = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ]

URI scheme specifications must define their own syntax so that all 
strings matching their scheme-specific syntax will also match the 
<absolute-URI> grammar. Scheme specifications will not define fragment 
identifier syntax or usage, regardless of its applicability to resources 
identifiable via that scheme, as fragment identification is orthogonal 
to scheme definition. However, scheme specifications are encouraged to 
include a wide range of examples, including examples that show use of 
the scheme's URIs with fragment identifiers when such usage is appropriate."

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2011 20:50:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 24 May 2011 20:50:26 GMT