W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > November 2006

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

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>
Message-ID: <004f01c70832$7b981560$4a741780@bioxiao>

- 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? 

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:44:58 UTC