Re: Using fragment identifiers with URNs

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 04:30:55PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 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.

Yep. If you can retrieve something back and you know what kind of
media type it is then the fragment should be able to be used that way...
The Resource named by a URN can be retrieved if that service is available.
Its just that the URN scheme itself doesn't require there to be
a resolution mechanism...


Michael Mealling	|      Vote Libertarian!       | urn:pin:1      |                              |

Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2001 21:54:18 UTC