- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 10:14:06 -0700
- To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>
Note that the URNbis working group has been discussing fragment identifiers for URNs. If you say a URN is merely a URI using the "urn:" scheme, then perhaps whether URNs allow fragment identifiers should be out of scope for the URNbis working group. Larry -----Original Message----- From: Ted Hardie [mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 10:11 AM To: julian.reschke@gmx.de Cc: Magnus Westerlund; Larry Masinter; mmusic-chairs@tools.ietf.org; uri-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Uri-review] In WG last call review of URI Schemes rtsp, rtsps and rtspu On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Can't I even say that fragments is not allowed for a scheme? > > > No. I'm not sure I agree with this. If a registration is intended to create an identifier that has no associated resource (and thus no media type), it could say that fragments are not permitted. This is a restatement of something that can be inferred from 3986, but I think it's a useful thing to reinforce. regards, Ted
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 17:14:45 UTC