- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:47:32 -0500
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
- Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org, Stuart Williams <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2004 12:47:29 UTC
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 04:35, Jacek Kopecky wrote: > Dan, I think I get your point about secondary resources not constituting > a class of resources. It would be helpful IMO if the document mentioned > how (of if), given a URI with a fragID, one can get to a representation > of the resource. Well, the straightforward way to get a representation of such a resource is to find another URI for it, one that doesn't have a fragID, and dereference that URI. "[...] some intermediaries in Web architecture (such as proxies) have no interaction with fragment identifiers and that redirection (in HTTP [RFC2616], for example) does not account for fragments." -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/#fragid > I believe a reference from 3.1 (or 3.1.1) to "details of handling URIs > with fragment identifiers, IOW getting representation for secondary > resources" pointing to 3.2.1 could solve this, in case that's the way of > getting to a representation of a resource via its secondary resource > identifier (URI with fragID). No, that's not a way of getting a representation of such a resource. > If such a link is added, my issue can be closed successfully, and Stuart > will not need to call me. 8-) > > Best regards, > > Jacek -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2004 12:47:29 UTC