Re: Using fragment identifiers with URNs

On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 12:02:00PM +1200, Stephen Cranefield wrote:
> 
> Thanks for that wonderfully clear and unambiguous statement of your
> view of the principles behind URIs.  Does that represent the shared view
> of the committee that created RFC2396, or is this your personal view?
> (I'm not trying to suggest that you aren't an authority here, I'm just
> trying to gauge whether or not I can consider the statements above
> as definitive.)

I don't know -- I have a hard enough time trying to figure out what my
own views are.  All I know is that there is an archive somewhere and I'm
sure that the working group argued over fragments more times than I can
remember.  RFC 2396 is supposed to reflect the rough consensus.  I know
it reflects the working code and the REST model, so that's my view.

> I hadn't realised that RFC2396 was intended to say anything about what
> applications *might* choose to do with URIs outside Web architecture,
> but I see that is probably necessary so that URIs can be incorporated
> into future techologies.

It is an IETF draft standard, not just a Web standard.  What it defines is
the protocol element in common use by a number in Internet technologies.
There are many possible uses of URI outside the Internet that it does
not attempt to address.  Note, however, that your suggested change would
restrict the applicability of a URI-reference beyond what the specification
currently requires, to the point where it conflicts with the Web.
You are suggesting that an application-specific requirement be placed
on an existing protocol element in order to satisfy some restriction
that somebody wants to use within RDF.  I don't see any reason why we
should make that change.

....Roy

Received on Thursday, 27 September 2001 20:40:12 UTC