W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webarch-comments@w3.org > October to December 2004

non-authoritative syntaxes for fragment identifiers

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:47:27 -0700
Message-Id: <EBB1569A-27CA-11D9-8B64-000393753936@gbiv.com>
Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
To: Myriam Amielh <myriam.amielh@cisra.canon.com.au>

>> 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.

Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2004 03:48:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:48 UTC