W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2002

RE: fragment identifiers

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 13:55:05 -0700
Message-ID: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C106028B5F@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>

> > That problem is simple to fix.  It is natural to want to make
> > about resources and about representations of resources.  It is
> > to distinguish between the two when targeting an assertion, since
> > back in 1995.  It is solved for HTTP/1.1.  Now we just need to find
> > corresponding syntax for it in RDF.

> Roy, would you mind explaining exactly how HTTP/1.1 solved this
> I think that would help.

One relevant scenario is the use of the Etag header in HTTP/1.1.  The
URL+ETag (and maybe additionally mime-type) uniquely identifies a
particular representation.

In practice, an http: identifier is used to identify a representation
dispenser, and the combination of http: identifier with ETag is used to
identify a particular "bag of bits" returned by that dispenser.
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2002 16:58:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:33 UTC