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

Re: Representation of a secondary resource?

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>
Message-Id: <1098881153.14529.2230.camel@dirk>
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

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