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

Roy T. Fielding (fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu)
Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:58:03 -0800


To: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
cc: uri@Bunyip.Com, urn-ietf@Bunyip.Com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 23 Jan 1998 16:17:39 EST."
             <01ISQ0HA9F2A007VBW@SCI.WFBR.EDU> 
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:58:03 -0800
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
Message-ID:  <9801231458.aa09077@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [URN] URI documents -- "# fragment" 

>However, the term "URI-reference" is not defined until Section 3,
>which has:
>
>      URI-reference = [ absoluteURI | relativeURI ] [ "#" fragment ]
>
>and a "plain word explanation" that the fragment is NOT part of the
>"URI".  People who are not dummies or fuddy-duddies have argued that
>characters allowable in the fragment string (to the right of the '#'
>delimiter) are not clearly specified in the URL -> URI drafts
>(because they specify what can be in URIs (URLs), and not also in
>URI-references (URL-references).

Also in section 3:

      fragment      = *uric

which excludes "#" and the other delims from appearing within the fragment.
People who argue otherwise have not read the specification.  Since this
is almost identical to the definitions in RFCs 1670 and 1808, people who
say it hasn't been clearly specified in the URL -> URI drafts are
just plain wrong.  There is no need for more clarification.

This isn't going to stop people from producing invalid URI.  What to
do when you encounter an invalid URI depends on the application type,
so we don't specify it.

....Roy