- From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 17:46:49 -0500 (EST)
- To: ssun@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
- Cc: uri@bunyip.com, urn-ietf@bunyip.com
Sam Sun <ssun@CNRI.Reston.VA.US> wrote: >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? They are not "scheme dependent". They are defined via application conventions, presently for text/html documents, and should apply no matter what scheme is used to retrieve such documents (i.e., not just http, although HTTP/1.n has one of the clearest means of specifing the MIME type). (An) application convention(s) could, someday, be specified in relation to (a) scheme(s). Why impose a restriction against someday doing so for some URNs, or for URNs that might return text/html documents such that the existing conventions would apply? Fote ========================================================================= Foteos Macrides Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU 222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545 =========================================================================
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 1998 17:50:22 UTC