Re: Using fragment identifiers with URNs

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.


Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2001 19:33:40 UTC