Sean Palmer wrote: > I think you'll find that a) FragID syntax is independant of > URI scheme [...] I'm not convinced this is true. The definition of a fragment identifier says (at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt): When a URI reference is used to perform a retrieval action on the identified resource, the optional fragment identifier, separated from the URI by a crosshatch ("#") character, consists of additional reference information to be interpreted by the user agent after the retrieval action has been successfully completed. As such, it is not part of a URI, but is often used in conjunction with a URI. This specifically defines a fragment URI as information related to a retrieval action. Therefore one could argue that it doesn't make sense to have a fragment identifier if the URI scheme is intended to denote names with no implied retrieval mechanism. - StephenReceived on Friday, 24 August 2001 02:21:22 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:51 GMT