W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2010

Re: ACTION-462: URI Fragments and HTTP redirects

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:16:13 +0200
Message-ID: <4CB594FD.9060407@gmx.de>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: nathan@webr3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
On 13.10.2010 13:05, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> ...
> I was responding to Julian, therefore (1).  You may have missed it but
> Julian and the HTTP WG have been planning to specify, in 2616's
> successor, that the first fragid has to be dropped.  TimBL and I are
 > ...

Actually, that the second overrides the first one (which is slightly 

> asking why, without getting a helpful answer.  I'm willing to

Speaking just for me, the most convincing argument is that this is what 
UAs actually have been doing for a very long time.

> accommodate the WG if referential transparency is kept or architecture
> is explicitly scrapped (my conversation with Yves).  You and TimBL
> take the hard line which is that we should just preserve the
> prohibition in 2616 i.e. (2).

Clarifying: there is no prohibition in 2616 *plus* accepted errata, 
which you really need to consider.

What's up for discussion is what the spec should say about fragment 

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 13 October 2010 11:17:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:08 UTC