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

Sam X. Sun (ssun@CNRI.Reston.VA.US)
Thu, 8 Jan 1998 03:08:15 -0500

Message-Id: <199801080810.DAA10319@newcnri.CNRI.Reston.Va.US>
From: "Sam X. Sun" <ssun@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
To: "Dan Connolly" <>
Cc: <>, <>
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
> > URL schemes. So my question is: is it acceptable to say that the
> > 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
the base URI is. I don't quite understand on where it would be

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:


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: and


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