Re: Hashlink parameterized URL

> I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, so am happy to add
> an experimental section stating something to the effect of "Hey, if you
> want to embed a hashlink in a path or a fragment identifier, here's one
> way you can do it, and this is experimental and we're looking for
> feedback on whether or not this is useful to you. Is this the only way
> you can achieve your use case?".

I think the approach taken in RFC6920 is more appropriate. Basically a disclaimer that acknowledges the ambiguity but still gives solid guidance that covers all the scenarios. Also since hashlink kind of supersedes RFC6920 I think it makes sense to have parity in this area.

> - Could we envision a hashlink as something that's up to the caller to
> parse and handle? I.e. caller extracts url (doesn't send hl) and then
> confirms content received matches?

Yes that's the use case for fragment so you can add an integrity value to a URL you don't control even if you can't support the hl: scheme

Received on Wednesday, 22 April 2020 23:45:31 UTC