Message-Id: <199801080810.DAA10319@newcnri.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> From: "Sam X. Sun" <ssun@CNRI.Reston.VA.US> To: "Dan Connolly" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: [URN] URI documents -- "# fragment" Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 03:08:15 -0500 > 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.