Message-Id: <firstname.lastname@example.org> In-Reply-To: <34CD082C.91CF0365@parc.xerox.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:34:51 -0500 To: Larry Masinter <email@example.com> From: "John C. Mallery" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Leslie Daigle <leslie@Bunyip.Com>, Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>, Subject: Re: [URN] URI documents -- "# fragment" At 2:03 PM -0800 98-01-26, Larry Masinter wrote: >I meant to post about this before; I think that "?" is the most >appropriate delimeter for what John Mallery wants for PDIs, rather than >"$", since it will be more likely processed correctly when dealing with >relative references that might be contained within returned material. No. URNs embedded in URLs will be improperly processed by legacy applications, not to mention that it overloads the delimiter. This is analogous to the problem with #. > >> Might be worth noting that #fragment is utterly bogus. > >It is totally worthless[sic] to attempt to note this. > >To put it in less bogus terms: Just because a widely deployed >syntactic construct doesn't do what YOU want, it doesn't mean that >it is "utterly bogus", no matter what school of hyperbole you adhere to. It remains utterly bogus to include it in the URI spec; it's fine in html/http (I use it all the time). I just get tired of endless thrashing.