RE: Using fragment identifiers with URNs

At 12:02 PM 9/28/01 +1200, Stephen Cranefield wrote:
> > It is therefore never correct to say that a fragment is
> > scheme-dependent, even though there are some schemes that identify
> > resources for which no representation is ever suitable for fragment
> > references when those references are made within the Web system.
>
>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.)

Well, I mostly agree with the statement made.  (I'd say "some URIs..." 
rather than "some schemes ...").

Another supporting reference is at 
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Model.html, which makes it clear that the 
design intent of fragment identifiers is that they be completely 
independent of whatever retrieval mechanism may be used.

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
GK@NineByNine.org