- From: Sam Sun <ssun@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 16:54:27 -0500
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
- Cc: "Larry Masinter" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, <uri@bunyip.com>, <urn-ietf@bunyip.com>
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 >
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 1998 16:49:15 UTC