On 2002-02-15 10:24 PM, "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> wrote: > RDF uses (or allows use of) fragment identifiers in a way that is > presumed to be independent of any particular data representation that a > resource may have. Yes, and moreover, the URI RFC says that this is specifically not the case: "The semantics of a fragment identifier is a property of the data resulting from a retrieval action, regardless of the type of URI used in the reference. Therefore, the format and interpretation of fragment identifiers is dependent on the media type [RFC2046] of the retrieval result." - RFC 2396, section 4.1 I think DanC and I agree that this is the core issue of debate. Dan claims that this doesn't restrict the meaning of URIs-with-fragments (i.e. they can be treated like any other URI), I claim it restricts them as to make them useless for our purposes. -- [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]Received on Sunday, 17 February 2002 22:28:40 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:15 EDT