W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2006

RE: Confusion on httpRange-14 decision

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:26:55 -0500
Message-ID: <A5EEF5A4F0F0FD4DBA33093A0B075590097B6890@tayexc18.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>

> From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@inf.ed.ac.uk] 
> 
> Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) writes:
> > . . .
> > Consider the URI http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/#me .  The
> > httpRange-14 decision says that if an HTTP GET of
> > http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ returns a 2xx status, then
> > http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ is an "information resource".
> 
> Minor request for clarification -- does it matter for your 
> purposes that there currently _is_ no anchor named 'me' in 
> the HTML retrievable today from http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ ?

No, for two reasons.  First, in many typical cases the anchor *will*
exist in the HTML.  (Perhaps I used a bad example in showing Dan's URI.)
Second, as far as I can tell from the WebArch, the meaning of the
fragment identifier does not depend on its existence in the retrieved
HTML representation.  The dependency is on whether a *representation*
exists when the primary resource is dereferenced, as explained at [1].

Reference
1. DBooth comment on missing fragid:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0183.html

David Booth
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 17:27:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:38 GMT