RE: Re[4]: AW: Content negotiation flamewar (was: Re: "Hash URIs" and content negotiation)

- 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, 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, 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? 


Received on Tuesday, 14 November 2006 21:21:49 UTC