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

Xiaoshu, Max, Dan,

I've managed, with your help, to get a somewhat coherent picture of  
what's going on with content negotiation and hash URIs. I've  
convinced myself that there is no problem if one is a little bit  
careful. The approach in the Vocabulary Recipes [1] is correct and  
makes sense.

A long writeup of how I think it all works is at [2]. Comments are  



On 14 Nov 2006, at 22:18, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:

> - 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  
> 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?
> Xiaoshu

Received on Thursday, 16 November 2006 03:13:01 UTC