Re: the state of ldp-patch, and a procedural proposal

hello all.

On 2013-10-02 17:22 , "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>On 10/2/13 7:35 PM, Ashok Malhotra wrote:
>>On 10/2/2013 4:44 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>> Just out of curiosity, what exactly do you mean by hash URI?
>> I believe he means relative URI
>><#this> is typically a relative HTTP based hash URI. Just as <this> is
>usually a relative HTTP based hashless URI :-)
>Example:
><#this> and 
><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Oct/0017.html#this>
> 
>more than likely (subject to responses to this post) denote this post .

just to be crystal-clear on this, because this can make a relevant
difference: the fragment part of a URI
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.5) does not really define a
"separate resource) from the non-fragment part (what's called the "primary
resource" in the spec). it simply identifies a secondary resource that has
not been deemed important enough to be assigned its own "primary resource
URI", and instead has an identity that only exists (and makes sense)
within the context of the primary resource. for web interactions,
fragments do not even matter, because their interpretation is client-side
only:

"As such, the fragment identifier is not used in the scheme-specific
processing of a URI; instead, the fragment identifier is separated from
the rest of the URI prior to a dereference, and thus the identifying
information within the fragment itself is dereferenced solely by the user
agent, regardless of the URI scheme." (RFC 3986)

cheers,

dret.

Received on Thursday, 3 October 2013 17:26:53 UTC