W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org > July 2004

RE: URIs that end in # but don't have fragment IDs

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:55:05 -0700
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA20435AA6F@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Elliotte Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, <www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org>

We interpret the productions in 2396 as allowing a fragment identifier
to be zero length, in which case the # serves to signal its existence.
So whenever # appears, there is a fragment identifier, and a fatal error
must result.

We've added the following note of clarification:

"Note:
  A URI ending in # is considered by [IETF RFC 2396] to have an empty
fragment identifier. Such a URI would result in a fatal error as
described above."

We hope this satisfies your comment, please let us know promptly if it
does not.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-xml-xinclude-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-xml-xinclude-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Elliotte Harold
> Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 4:23 PM
> To: www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org
> Subject: URIs that end in # but don't have fragment IDs
> 
> 
> As I read RFC 2396, in a URI such as
http://www.example.com/index.xml#name
> the fragment identifier is "name". The sharp sign is not included in
the
> fragment ID.
> 
> Section 3.1 of the XInclude CR says that fragment IDs must not be used
> in href attributes. However, is this legal?
> 
> <xi:include href="http://www.example.com/index.xml#"/>
> 
> My current reading of the spec is that this is legal. But should it
be?
> 
> --
> Elliotte Rusty Harold
Received on Monday, 12 July 2004 17:55:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:16:10 GMT