Re: [URN] Re: URI documents

Sam Sun (ssun@CNRI.Reston.VA.US)
Wed, 7 Jan 1998 16:54:27 -0500


From: "Sam Sun" <ssun@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
Cc: "Larry Masinter" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, <uri@bunyip.com>,
Subject: Re: [URN] Re: URI documents 
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 16:54:27 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd1bb6$d32a8960$29019784@ssun.CNRI.Reston.Va.US>

Hi, Roy,

I didn't follow the history of the issue long enough, and don't quite
understand why " [ "#" fragment ] " has to be defined in the URI/URL
syntax.

In the case of URL, The " [ "#" fragment ] " is only used or useful by some
URL schemes. So my question is: is it acceptable to say that the fragment
is scheme dependent, and don't bring it up in the URI definition?

Regards,
Sam


-----Original Message-----
From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: uri@Bunyip.Com <uri@Bunyip.Com>; urn-ietf@Bunyip.Com
<urn-ietf@Bunyip.Com>
Date: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [URN] Re: URI documents


>>If we attempted to remove any indication that the URI document did
>>anything more than specify the syntax of URIs and how that syntax
>>should be processed by URI-processing software, with any semantic
>>interpretation of the *meaning*, do you think we could get beyond
>>the current impasse?
>
>It depends on what would be removed.  I don't want to remove any
>information which has been proven necessary for people implementing
>parsers in URI-enabled applications.  That covers just about everything
>in the current document, since we already went through 12 iterations
>of removing things that were not needed and adding those that people
>have requested.
>
>If the URN group does not want fragments to be in the syntax, then
>a URN is not a URI.  I don't think there is even a tiny bit of logic
>to support the conclusion that a URN would not use fragments, but I
>can't stop people from shooting themselves in the foot.
>
>Stripping the URL specification such that it is as meaningless as the
>URN specification is not an option --- we know what is and is not
>generic syntax and semantics simply by looking at the parsers which
>implement these things in current practice.  If a URN is not a URI,
>then we should define the URL specification to represent the complete
>scope of locators, and simply ignore URN.
>
>....Roy
>