W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-fragment-comments@w3.org > April 1999

Re: Changing fragbodyref to be an URL

From: Daniel Veillard <Daniel.Veillard@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 06:00:48 -0400
To: "Joel A. Nava" <jnava@Adobe.COM>
Cc: www-xml-fragment-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <19990426060048.F9125@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 23, 1999 at 02:33:57PM -0700, Joel A. Nava wrote:
> Daniel, are you saying that a fragbodyref be limited to
> only being a URL?

  Oops mistake, not URL, but URI, and as James pointed out URI Reference
seems the appropriate term.

> As far as the spec goes, a reference is very general, and
> fragbodyref examples, and prose on the subject show them
> to be URIs, URLs, and other types of references. Since
> it is already allowed, I don't see the need to restrict
> a fragbodyref to URLs only.

  Restricting it to a known kind of reference allow to anticipate
on the processing needed to handle the fragment on the receiving side.
In the case one use a packaging mechanism, having a strutured
naming scheme is important for the evolution of the specification.
Expressing fragbodyref references as URIs allows to bypass the
packaging mechanism, and provide a standard way to use Fragment
in the absence of a Packaging format. This is useful when the server
has no idea on the client capacity to decode say Mime multipart messages.

Daniel

-- 
	    [Yes, I have moved back to France !]
Daniel.Veillard@w3.org | W3C, INRIA Rhone-Alpes  | Today's Bookmarks :
Tel : +33 476 615 257  | 655, avenue de l'Europe | Linux, WWW, rpmfind,
Fax : +33 476 615 207  | 38330 Montbonnot FRANCE | rpm2html, XML,
http://www.w3.org/People/W3Cpeople.html#Veillard | badminton, and Kaffe.
Received on Monday, 26 April 1999 06:00:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:52:38 UTC