- From: Max Voelkel <voelkel@fzi.de>
- Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:03:28 +0100
- To: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
> [...] > Depending on what we asked for, #Bob could be a part of an HTML > document, or #Bob could be something that according to authoritative > RDF statements is a person. not really 'part of an HTML document', the fragment id is much vaguer defined. In the spec [1] we only find "The retrieved resource may be handled by the user agent in several ways: by opening a new HTML document in the same user agent window, opening a new HTML document in a different window, starting a new program to handle the resource, etc. Since the A element has content (text, images, etc.), user agents may render this content in such a way as to indicate the presence of a link (e.g., by underlining the content). When the name or id attributes of the A element are set, the element defines an anchor that may be the destination of other links." "Note. User agents should be able to find anchors created by empty A elements, but some fail to do so. For example, some user agents may not find the "empty-anchor" in the following HTML fragment:" "Anchor names should be restricted to ASCII characters. Please consult the appendix for more information about non-ASCII characters in URI attribute values." > If we answer 303 if asked for HTML, then the server essentially says, > "Sorry, I can't give you an HTML representation of http://example.com/ > resources (because then you could wrongly conclude that #Bob is a > part of an HTML document), but over there is another resource that > might be relevant to your request." Hmm those 3xx status code are clearly between 200 OK and 400/500 problem. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#h-12.1 Kind Regards, Max -- Max Völkel (http://Xam.de) Forschungszentrum Informatik (fzi.de) job: +49 721 9654-854 | mobil: +49 171 8359678
Received on Tuesday, 14 November 2006 14:03:51 UTC