- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:47:27 -0700
- To: Myriam Amielh <myriam.amielh@cisra.canon.com.au>
- Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
>> This section has been updated to reflect your comments >> >> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20041021/#media-type-fragid > > mmm, well, I'm confused. I thought we agreed that the two sentences: > > One may compare URIs with fragment identifiers without a > retrieval action. Parties that draw conclusions about the > interpretation > of a fragment identifier based solely on a syntactic analysis of all > or part of a URI do so at their own risk; such interpretations are > not authoritative because they are not licensed by specification. > > were leftovers from a prior edit and that they duplicate what is > already said in sections 2.5. In addition nothing indicates that we > are talking about non-authoritative syntaxes, so connection with the > last sentence is not clear. > > And in the Editor's Draft 19 October 2004, the second sentence is > still present (the one starting with 'Parties'). > > Did I miss something? No, I did -- I searched for the wrong paragraph and assumed it was gone after our discussion in Basel. I will re-raise the issue with the TAG. ....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2004 03:48:01 UTC