- From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 07:21:28 -0700
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "mmusic-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mmusic-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote, quoting Graham Klyne: >> Note that this specification, like any URI scheme specification, does >> not define syntax or meaning of a fragment identifier (see [STD66]), >> because these depend on the type of a retrieved representation. In >> the currently known usage scenarios, a 'mailto' URI cannot be used to >> retrieve such representations. Therefore, fragment identifiers are >> meaningless, SHOULD NOT be used on 'mailto' URIs, and SHOULD be >> ignored upon resolution. The character "#" in <hfvalue>s MUST be >> escaped as %23. >> >> This seems to be fully in line with the discussion up to here, including Roy's comment above, but if anybody thinks it needs to be changed, please send some new proposed wording. > > The second to last sentence is wrong. That spec cannot make > normative requirements about something that is out of scope; > any fragment is completely outside the scope of a URI scheme > specification. Just remove the "Therefore, ... resolution." > sentence -- it serves no useful purpose. > > ....Roy > Would you still object if it simply said "Therefor fragment identifiers are meaningless in current email contexts."? I think this remains useful and it eliminates the normative language. regards, Ted
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 14:21:57 UTC