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

Foteos Macrides (
Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:17:55 -0500 (EST)

Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:17:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Foteos Macrides <>
To: leslie@Bunyip.Com
Cc: uri@Bunyip.Com, urn-ietf@Bunyip.Com
Message-id: <01ISU4QYA3AE00877V@SCI.WFBR.EDU>
Subject: Re: [URN] URI documents -- "# fragment"

Leslie Daigle <leslie@Bunyip.Com> wrote:
>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.

	I much prefer "Uniform" over "Universal" (URIs won't also
be universal until the i18n provisions are fully worked out and
incorporated :).

	However, to be uniform, I still think URIs must be parsable for
fragment instructions which apply to media types, not to schemes, and
regardless of whether particular schemes might actually have fragments,
i.e., any crosshatch which is not a fragment delimiter should be escaped.


 Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
 MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545