- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:07:23 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-04-20 09:30, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 20/04/2013, at 5:28 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > >> On 2013-04-20 06:07, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> P1 sections 2.7.1 and 2.7.2 define the HTTP and HTTPS URI schemes without fragment identifiers. >>> >>> While it's true that HTTP sends these URIs without fragids "on the wire" in the request-target, the schemes *do* allow fragids pretty much everywhere else they're used (including some places in HTTP, e.g., the Location header). >>> >>> Given that this is going to be the definition for these URI schemes, and we already require that the fragid be omitted in the request-target, shouldn't the syntax allow a fragment identifier? >> >> No. >> >> Fragment identifiers are allowed for *any* URI scheme; the scheme definition doesn't need to include it. > > > Then why do we include query? Because we are defining a <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#absolute-uri>. Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 20 April 2013 08:07:56 UTC