Re: [URN] Re: URI documents

Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= (
Wed, 07 Jan 1998 07:27:58 +0100

Message-Id: <>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 07:27:58 +0100
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <>
From: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <>
Subject: Re: [URN] Re: URI documents
Cc: Dan Connolly <>, Larry Masinter <>,
In-Reply-To: <>

At 12:59 1998-01-06 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>- The class of identifiers that, roughly speaking, start with
>  a short string and a colon, and go on in a charset-limited way.
>  All the URI axioms you cite are axioms of that class.
>- The class of identifiers that, in addtion to being of the first
>  class, obey certain additional rules, such as hierarchy,
>  hostname representation and so on.
>  None of this is necessary for the URI axioms; they are vitally
>  necessary for today's day-to-day usage of the World Wide Web.
>If this is the case, we have more issues:
>- Is the #fragment rule a "type 1", "type 2" or "none of the above, but
>  should be mentioned in both places"?

It depends on if you talk about the syntax (using the octet with value '#'
in US-ASCII as a special octet in the URI sequence) or if you talk about
the functionality. I.e. the conclusion is that it has to be mentioned in
both. The character '#' is a special in the URI syntax, and must be treated
as such for all URI schemes. The argument is that it is (as it is in RFC
1730 if I am not mistaken) to be used as a fragment specifier. In the URL
syntax paper one can more definitely talk about what a fragment specifier
is, and how it is to be treated for URLs (if it is the fact that this is
something that _have_ to be treated exactly the same way for all URL schemes).

I.e. the syntax is one thing, and the "semantic interpretation" of the
octet is something different when found in a URI sequence (which as
mentioned in the character set thread started by Larry) is something
different (maybe) from the "character in the URI".


Email:            URL:
PGP: 4D38 91A4 27D9 C8B2 6975  D6BB 21D0 4C57 BD23 6602