W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > May to June 2002

Fragments and Resources [was: Re: [rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6] [...]]

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 15:06:50 +0100
Message-ID: <01af01c20263$18d008e0$7bbd0150@localhost>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-talk@w3.org>
> Before this gets out of hand, I suggest we take this off-line to
> www-talk,

Agreed.

> Quick response to Julian; yes, I consider XML Namespaces
> broken in this respect.  I have requested that XML Schema
> 2.0(?) add a datatype for URIs (anyURI is for URI references).

That's a very good idea: they could have relativeURI, absoluteURI, and
fragURI, and then make anyURI a union of the three (and should have done so
in the first place).

Obviously we've discussed the fragments-identify-resources issue before. I
think I summed up basically everything that I want to say on the issue at:-
http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2002-03-21.html#T03-50-04
Unless you have anything to add to that which you didn't at the time, I
think that the matter is settled: there is nothing in specification or
implementation that necessarily restricts the semantics derived from the
interpretation of fragment identifiers, except when you get to the media
type specifications, which do as they shall.

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://purl.org/net/swn#> .
:Sean :homepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 13:06:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:27 GMT