- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:58:09 -0500
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>, public-iri@w3.org
I think you mint the fragment. Noting %41 is a percent escape sequence that is legal but inappropriate for minting, then: http://example.org/foo# does not have the relevant warning #toto%41 does http://example.org/foo#toto%41 does #toto does not http://example.org/foo%41 does http://example.org/foo%41#toto does Examination of the relative reference and the base URI and the resolved URI allow one to see where the problem occurred. Ditto for say NFKC. Jeremy Chris Lilley wrote: > On Tuesday, January 10, 2006, 4:14:06 PM, Jeremy wrote: > > JC> I think in both RFC 3987 and RFC 3986 there are three effective levels > JC> of instruction: MUST force, SHOULD force, and something I am calling > JC> minting force (i.e. applied on generation not receipt). > > A meta-question - does the concatenation of a URI with a fragment to > make a new URI constitute minting? > > In RFC 2396, the fragment was not part of the URI so in theory no new > URI was generated. > > In RFC 3986 and thus RFC 3987, the fragment is part of the URI. > > So, if http://example.org/foo (or http://example.net/foo# ) already > exist, does concatenation to produce http://example.org/foo#toto (or > http://example.net/foo#toto ) constitute minting a new URI/IRI or is it > re-using an existing one? > > >
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2006 18:58:12 UTC