- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 09:04:59 +0100
- To: Stephen Cranefield <SCranefield@infoscience.otago.ac.nz>
- Cc: "'uri@w3.org'" <uri@w3.org>
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
Received on Friday, 28 September 2001 05:05:38 UTC