- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 08:09:20 -0700
- To: "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
- Cc: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> >Regarding allowing fragments, I believe the same is the case for > >Content-Location: > > > > Content-Location = "Content-Location" ":" > > ( absoluteURI | relativeURI ) > > > >should be > > > > Content-Location = "Content-Location" ":" > > ( absoluteURI | relativeURI ) [ "#" > fragment ] > > No, that would be incorrect. The reference in > Content-Location must be > to a resource, not a fragment of a resource representation. The fragment (or view) is a function of the media type of the representation chosen and hence does not have to be defined the same way across the set of representations available for content negotiation of any particular resource. For example, a fragment in HTML pointing to page 3 does not have to be defined the same way for PS. It is therefore functionally correct that Content-Location can contain a fragment. The problem is of course that HTTP servers currently do not see the fragment under normal circumstances because clients do not send it but this is the same as for the Location header field. In fact, I consider this a bug in HTTP :) Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, mailto:frystyk@microsoft.com
Received on Sunday, 15 August 1999 10:19:59 UTC