- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 17:32:57 +0000
- To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, "Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>
- CC: "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>
On 07/11/2014 01:15, John Cowan wrote: >> 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.) Agreed, but... There's still an option to use HTTP Link: headers to provide additional URI information, such as fragments. Whether that's a good idea is debatable, and almost certainly use-case dependent. #g --
Received on Sunday, 9 November 2014 17:33:28 UTC