W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2002

RE: 2002-02-25#19, Fragment identifiers, words for the primer

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 12:45:21 -0000
To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org>
Cc: "RDF core WG" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDCEEDCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

I am happy with such changes.

I guess you're knocking the ball back to Aaron's court over the final

> >
> >[[[ADD:
> >Finally, other non-RDF components of a system may expect to be
> >able to treat a URI with fragment identifier in a manner similar to
> >the treatment of a URL with fragment identifier used for document
> >retrieval over the web. This may lead to interoperability problems.
> >]]]

> I think that if this is to be included, we need some
> justification (e.g. an
> example where interoperability fails).  I have found it hard to come up
> with a convincing case.  From my exchanges with Pat, I think the dragons
> may not be as fiery as we first thought if we are clear about the
> accidental nature of any relationship between URI and URI#frag as far as
> RDF is concerned.
Received on Friday, 8 March 2002 07:45:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:56 UTC