- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 23:25:35 PST
- To: uri@bunyip.com
I'm told that mail to uri@bunyip.com from the end of November might have been lost, so I'm re-sending from my mail archives. ================================================================ Date: Mon, 1 Jan 96 11:43:22 EST 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> 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.)
Received on Monday, 8 January 1996 02:25:49 UTC