Re: [URN] Re: URI documents

Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
Wed, 07 Jan 1998 16:49:35 -0600


Message-ID: <34B4067F.4A5F@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 16:49:35 -0600
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
To: Sam Sun <ssun@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>,
Subject: Re: [URN] Re: URI documents

Sam Sun wrote:
> 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?

No; that is, to say that is not consistent with current
implementations, and I would find it unacceptable.
For example, consider:

	<p>...<a href="#foo">tail</a>

	...

	<p><a name="foo">head</a>

I can tell you where the link from tail goes (i.e. to head)
without knowing what URI scheme was used to access the document. So
can lots of implemented web clients (and maybe even some servers).


-- 
Dan
http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/