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

Leslie Daigle (leslie@Bunyip.Com)
Mon, 26 Jan 1998 12:27:07 -0500 (EST)

Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 12:27:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@Bunyip.Com>
To: Foteos Macrides <>
cc: uri@Bunyip.Com, urn-ietf@Bunyip.Com
In-Reply-To: <01ISQ0HA9F2A007VBW@SCI.WFBR.EDU>
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [URN] URI documents -- "# fragment"

On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Foteos Macrides wrote:
> 	Note also that RFC 1630 had the title "Universal Resource
> Identifiers in WWW", i.e., was about URIs, not just URLs, and
> provides for fragments in URIs.  I agree that if URNs are specified
> such that they could not accept fragments as "instructions to the
> client", then they should not be considered URIs, and that would
> be unacceptible (so don't impose that restriction on URNs :).

URIs as a whole have evolved considerably since RFC1630 -- not the least
of which is the fact that they are now "Uniform" and not "Universal"
Resource Identifiers.  

My point is this:  be careful of claiming that anything that doesn't
fit with the earliest specifications is not valid; that prevents evolution
of design.



  "_Be_                                           Leslie Daigle
             where  you                           
                          _are_."                 Bunyip Information Systems
                                                  (514) 875-8611
                      -- ThinkingCat