- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@ebuilt.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 16:30:55 -0700
- To: Stephen Cranefield <SCranefield@infoscience.otago.ac.nz>
- Cc: "'uri@w3.org'" <uri@w3.org>
Kia ora,
On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 11:19:04AM +1200, Stephen Cranefield wrote:
> 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?
It is possible to use a URN to perform a retrieval action, so I don't
follow your argument. Just because the action isn't implied doesn't mean
that the identifier can't be used in performing the action explicitly.
....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2001 19:33:40 UTC