- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:43:09 -0500
- To: Miles Sabin <miles@milessabin.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 08:51:30AM +0000, Miles Sabin wrote: > In the context of my reply to Tim Bray's mail, I think "break" is > exactly the right word. Sorry, I just meant *I* wouldn't use that word. > > It would certainly reduce visibility into the message by HTTP > > components that relied on the assumption that the URI in the HTTP > > request line identified the resource being interacted with. > > I don't believe it would. If an HTTP client is told that "http://example.org/foo#bar" identifies a resource of interest to it, and attempts to dereference that URIref, "#bar" isn't part of that HTTP GET message that gets sent. By *definition*, other HTTP components have less visibility into the meaning of the message than the client. > But it's absolutely not legitimate to insist that that mindset or > methodology is the only way of obtaining that useful property, or to > insist that it's privileged to the exclusion of all else. That _does_ > break things (in this case RDF), at least politically, by effectively > ruling out other equally useful approaches. As I see it, in order to recover this lost visibility, one of two things would need to occur. Either RDF/SW have to start identifying things without fragment ids, or we need to deploy some means of introducing the fragment id into the HTTP message envelope (Request-URI -> Request-URIref, an extension header, etc..). As Tim Bray correctly (IMO) pointed out, it's a whole lot easier to do the former than the latter at this point in time. MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 09:41:49 UTC