Re: ERB: decision and conundrum

At 12:51 PM 3/18/97 -0500, Gavin Nicol wrote:
>>I just did some tests and it appears that the fragment identifier (the text
>>following the hash on the URL) is even passed to the server

We assume he means 'NOT even passed to the server'

>Right. We looked at the problem of subdocument addressing in
>DynaWeb a number of times. You cannot use fragment specifiers
>in URL's if you want server-side processing. 

In XML, we do *not* want to build the server-side/client-side 
distinction into the link syntax.  We want to attach a URL and
a TEI xpointer and let the server & client figure out what to
do.  If we want to force server-side processing, the '?'
syntax is available.  

There is nothing in the current URL RFC that allows a resource/fragment
partitioning without also forcing the process model.  In my view, this
is purely a bug.  Either we introduce a new syntax, or we overload '#' 
and let the market deal with it. -Tim