RE: Confusion on httpRange-14 decision

> 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