Is it valid to use a fragment identifier with a URN? The definition of a fragment identifier in RFC2396 suggests that they are only relevant to URLs: When a URI reference is used to perform a retrieval action on the identified resource, the optional fragment identifier, separated from the URI by a crosshatch ("#") character, consists of additional reference information to be interpreted by the user agent after the retrieval action has been successfully completed. This specifically defines a fragment identifier to be information related to a retrieval action, which implies that it makes no sense to use a fragment identifier with a URI scheme intended to denote names with no implied retrieval mechanism. However, I have certainly seen them used with URNs. Has this issue been clarified in any documents subsequent to RFC2396? - Stephen ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Cranefield Department of Information Science University of Otago Dunedin, New Zealand ----------------------------------------------------------------------Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2001 19:16:35 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:39 UTC