Re: ERB: decision and conundrum

At 10:17 AM 3/17/97 -0800, Terry Allen wrote:
>Peter Flynn wrote:
>| >More on addressing.  On March 15, the ERB agreed that:
>| Good. Is this now cast in Jell-O and can I document it in the FAQ?
>Better not.

No kidding.  We have serious unsolved problems.

>| >3. The '#' may be followed by the string "<tei>"
>The angle brackets are excluded characters per 
>    ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-fielding-url-syntax-03.txt
>of December 1996, the latest URL syntax draft I can find at the site.

Not only that; that draft also makes it crystal clear that the URL
syntax hardwires in the processing model; i.e. if you say URL#fragment,
the user agent has to get the whole URL and pick out the fragment.  
Clearly this is a nonstarter for XML, where the fragment might select
an entry from the OED... on the other hand using URL?fragment has its
own set of problems.  In fact, what we *really* want is to specify the
URL and fragment by way of policy, and let the implementation figure
out how to divvy the load between client and server.  Also, we'd like
to do this without egregiously violating the ruling RFC's.  Which may
cost us our ability to declare that "locators are URLs".  Blecch.
Double blecch. - Tim