- From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 08:42:22 -0800
- To: PeterRushforth <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Cc: "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>
-------------------------------------------- On Thu, 11/6/14, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote: Rushforth, Peter scripsit: > Can someone explain that to me, please? I think the 'secondary > resource' identified by fragment identifiers could be extremely useful > not only on the client but also to the origin server That ship sailed decades ago. HTTP servers don't expect to see fragment IDs in requests and will malfunction if they get them, and non-HTTP servers don't have any protocol for accepting them at all. The exchange between clients and servers is in terms of entity-bodies representing whole resources. Nothing else is practical at this stage. (HTTP 1.1 clients and servers can pass around pieces of entity bodies using the Range and Content-Range headers, but that's low-level and meant for fragmentation, not for semantic fragments.) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yup, ship's gone. If the [Registry or Flag of Convenience or Group Identity] are important, as they are for long term ontology management, then you can use Strategy Markup Language (StratML) or Asset Description Metadata Schema (ADMS). --Gannon P.S. Please don't mention to The Surveillance Society that group identity is a probability not a tattoo. It makes her grumpy. Thanks.
Received on Friday, 7 November 2014 16:42:50 UTC