Re: [URN] URI documents -- "# fragment"

> 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?

Dan Said:
> 
> No; that is, to say that is not consistent with current
> implementations, and I would find it unacceptable.

The current implementation (eg. Netscape browser) append the "#fragment" to
whatever
the base URI is. I don't quite understand on where it would be
inconsistent?

Here is an example which I think doesn't honor the current '#' URI syntax:

If I define my password as "password_with_#_character", and use "ftp" URL:

ftp://my_user_id:password_with_#_character@myhost/my_file_path

Netscape browser implementation will pass the entire password (with #
character in it) to the server, instead of sending only
"ftp://user_id:password_with_" to the server. In fact, using %25 to replace
the '#' character will fail. 

Dan Said:
> 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).
> 

The example will fail from the current Netscape implementation if no BASE
URI is defined. (Refer the following URL for an example:
http://ssun.cnri.reston.va.us/ietf/uri/nobase.htm and
http://ssun.cnri.reston.va.us/ietf/uri/fragment.htm).

Regards,
Sam

PS. To avoid distraction from the current discussion on relationship of URN
& URI, I modified the subject title.

Received on Thursday, 8 January 1998 07:49:38 UTC