- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 00:26:19 PDT
- To: uri@bunyip.com
The HTML standard is proposing to define 'URI', since we haven't. Here's what they're saying. Check it out. Subject: Re: HTML 2.0 LAST CALL: URI vs URL Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 07:27:19 -0700 From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org> In message <95Jun4.170924pdt.58374@omnibus.parc.xerox.com>, Larry Masinter writ es: >> The URI working group is going to keep redefining things. > >Not if I can help it. I suggest that the HTML 2.0 standards-track >document not attempt to make forward reference to URNs when there is >no standards-track or even widespread current practice for such. The only reference to URNs is: http://www.w3.org/hypertext/WWW/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec_4.html#SEC59 Thu Jun 8 15:08:56 1995 |URN | specifies a preferred, more persistent identifier for the head anchor of | the hyperlink. The format of URNs is under discussion (1995) by | various working groups of the Internet Engineering Task Force. I'm willing to take that last sentence out. >Since standards-track HTML 2.0 is to be rooted in `current practice', >it should make reference to the standards-track RFC 1738, and say that >in HTML, a reference can be either a URL or a relative URL followed >optionally by an anchor; The current draft says: http://www.w3.org/hypertext/WWW/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec_6.html#SEC65 Thu Jun 8 15:08:57 1995 |Anchors are addressed by Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI). URIs either |refer directly to an anchor in absolute form for example as in [URL], or |they refer to an anchor relative to a base URI which is absolute, as in |[RELURL]. > the interpretation of the anchor is only >defined if the URL (or partial URL) refers to a HTML 2.0 document, and >in such case, the anchor is as defined in HTML 2.0 standards. It would >be useful to make note that a particular kind of reference is one that >supplies a null partial URL followed by a '#' fragment identifier, in >which case it means a link to an anchor in the very same HTML >document. The current draft says (eek! why are fragment identifiers under images? lemme fix that...): http://www.w3.org/hypertext/WWW/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec_6.html#SEC69 Thu Jun 8 15:25:20 1995 |Any characters following a `#' character in a URI constitute a fragment |identifier. As a degenerate case, a URI of the form `#fragment' refers to |an anchor in the same document. | |The meaning of fragment identifiers depends on the media type of the |resource containing the head anchor. For `text/html' resources, it refers |to the A element with a NAME attribute whose value is the same as the |fragment identifier. The matching is case sensitive. The document should |have exactly one such element. The user agent should indicate the anchor |element, for example by scrolling to and/or highlighting the phrase. How's that? Dan
Received on Friday, 9 June 1995 03:26:52 UTC