- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:59:38 -0600
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Cc: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>, www-tag@w3.org
At 16:41 2002 03 18 -0500, Simon St.Laurent wrote: >On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 15:20, Paul Grosso wrote: >> However, you are talking about empty URI references which isn't >> the current topic. >> >> Instead, read the appropriate part about "5.2. Resolving Relative >> References to Absolute Form". Specifically, the second step of >> the algorithm: >> >> 2) If the path component is empty and the scheme, authority, and >> query components are undefined, then it is a reference to the >> current document and we are done. >> >> I don't find that ambiguous at all. > >I find the statement unambiguous but I'm not sure how you mean it. > >Are you suggesting (which I suspect) that: >http://simonstl.com/# > >is in fact the same as: >http://simonstl.com/ > >and if so, do you accept the use of http://simonstl.com/# as something >different from http://simonstl.com/ ? No, I am not talking about that at all. I'm saying that a URI reference that consists of nothing but a fragment identifier (e.g., <a href="#xxx">) by definition refers to the resource in which that URI reference exists regardless of any base URI specification because point 2 of the algorithm says that the base URI is ignored for such "fragment id only" URI references. As well it should as this is the only way to continue to have intra-document references work in the presence of a base URI specification. paul
Received on Monday, 18 March 2002 16:00:28 UTC