- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@apache.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 21:24:44 -0800
- To: Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org>
- Cc: Ron Daniel <rdaniel@taxonomystrategies.com>, www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
> But RFC 2396 says: > > The semantics of a fragment identifier is a property of the data > resulting from a retrieval action, regardless of the type of URI used > in the reference. Therefore, the format and interpretation of > fragment identifiers is dependent on the media type [RFC2046] of the > retrieval result. > > To me, this indicates that fragment identifiers are media-type-specific, > so I think I must have misunderstood either what you said or what the > RFC said. Could you clarify, please? The interpretation of fragment identifiers is media-type specific. That does not mean that it is a good idea to define the format of a fragment differently for every media type. Allowing the same identifier to apply to multiple media types isn't always possible, but it is desirable except in those very rare situations where the user actually intends to identify a specific XML element (as opposed to the content encapsulated by that element). ....Roy
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 17:38:23 UTC