W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > September 2001

RE: Using fragment identifiers with URNs

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 23:38:10 -0400
Message-Id: <200109280333.XAA12380348@smtp2.mail.iamworld.net>
To: Stephen Cranefield <SCranefield@infoscience.otago.ac.nz>, "'uri@w3.org'" <uri@w3.org>
At 11:13 PM 2001-09-27 , Stephen Cranefield wrote:
>Roy Fielding wrote:
>> 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.
>Actually, I'm not proposing making a change, just finding out how
>compatible the IETF notion of a URI is with the use of a URI scheme
>to represent abstract names with no retrieval semantics.  The answer
                         ... with no associated Resources?             <<<
>seems to be that it's not compatible.  For the record though, I don't
>see how such a change would "conflict with the Web".

What does the 'opaquelocktoken' scheme have to tell us here?

Is this compatible with the IETF doctrine on URIs?  

Can someone construct a scenario in which a #fragment appended to one of these
would ever see a context of use?


>- Stephen
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2001 23:33:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:39 UTC