Re: bug, or "feature"?

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Mon, 1 Jan 1996 11:43:22 PST


To: connolly@beach.w3.org
Cc: sjk@amazon.com, www-talk@w3.org, uri@bunyip.com
In-Reply-To: "Daniel W. Connolly"'s message of Mon, 1 Jan 1996 11:17:19 -0800 <m0tWpjU-0002UgC@beach.w3.org>
Subject: Re: bug, or "feature"? 
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <96Jan1.114338pst.2733@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 1996 11:43:22 PST

I should have read RFC 1808 more carefully! The presumption of

>   Within an object with a well-defined base URL of
>      Base: <URL:http://a/b/c/d;p?q#f>

makes no sense. 'An object' cannot have a Base with a fragment
identifier, since the fragment doesn't identify the object but the
fragment of an object. (That's the whole point of 'fragment'
identifiers, which is to give locations to parts of objects where the
parts don't have their own identifiers.)