- From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:18:51 -0500
- To: "'Richard Cyganiak'" <richard@cyganiak.de>, "'Max Voelkel'" <voelkel@fzi.de>
- Cc: "'Semantic Web'" <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Richard, > From RFC 2854 [1]: > > | For documents labeled as text/html, the fragment identifier > designates > | the correspondingly named element; any element may be named > with the > | "id" attribute, and A, APPLET, FRAME, IFRAME, IMG and MAP > elements may > | be named with a "name" attribute. > > So, the frag id names an *element*, a structural part of the document. > > This increases my conviction that, if #Bob is a person, a 303 > should be done before we serve HTML. The semantics you refered is the semantics of text/html but not the HTTP protocol. As far as the HTTP protocol is concerned, the #Bob is never requested. What is requested is the http://example.com/resource, which is an information resource. How to interpret the semantics of #Bob is at the client side and it is not coverred by the httpRange-14. If the agent "thinks" it has requested the http://example.com/resource#Bob, then it is the wrong implementation of the agent that leads to the wrong conclusion, but not the httpRange-14 resolution, don't you think? Xiaoshu
Received on Tuesday, 14 November 2006 21:21:49 UTC