W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > January 2006

RE: [VM] frag ids, 303, and browsers (was RE: httpRange-14: Use Case for RDF [302 versus 303 redirects])

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 11:19:08 -0500
Message-ID: <A5EEF5A4F0F0FD4DBA33093A0B075590097B67D5@tayexc18.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, "David Wood" <dwood@softwarememetics.com>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) [mailto:A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk] 
> . . .
> Actually, some browsers (e.g. IE6) *do* try to apply the frag 
> id to the response from the secondary URI, and therefore *do* 
> scan to the corresponding part of the document if the anchor 
> exists, but *don't* actually display the frag id in the URL 
> bar. Did you check this?
> 
> E.g. try putting the following URI into IE6:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/#symbol 

Interesting.  No, I did not check that.  I have now re-tested and here
are results from some browsers I had on hand (when a URI with a FragID
is 303-redirected to another URI):

                        Applies FragID  Displays FragID
Browser                 to new URI?     in new URI?
--------                --------------- ----------------
Epiphany 1.4.8          yes             yes
Firefox 1.0.4           yes             yes
IE 6                    yes             no
Opera 7.10              no              no
Amaya 8.5               yes             no

David Booth
Received on Saturday, 21 January 2006 16:22:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:16 UTC