- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 23:38:10 -0400
- 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?
Al
>- Stephen
>
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2001 23:33:20 UTC