W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > July 2002

new internet draft: "URI Fragment Identifiers for the text/plain Media Type"

From: Erik Wilde <net.dret@dret.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:28:37 +0200
Message-ID: <3D2DB235.9D70DFF1@dret.net>
To: uri@w3.org


i have authored an internet draft for fragment identifiers for
text/plain resources. the draft's abstract reads:

"This memo defines URI fragment identifiers for text/plain resources.
These fragment identifiers make it possible to refer to parts of a text
resource, identified by character count or range, line count or range,
or a regular expression. These identification methods can be combined to
identify more than one sub-resource of a text/plain resource."

you can find the draft in text and html form in the usual internet draft
archives (maybe after a one or two day delay) and at the following


currently i have the following open questions for the draft's next

- should there be more schemes? or less?

- is the concatenation of schemes a good thing? or a bad thing?

- it seems to be impossible to give a proper definition of
StringWithBalancedParens using rfc 2234 abnf. is this right? if so, is
it a problem?

- does anybody have a nice reference or syntax for iso 9945-2 bres? is
there a rfc defining bres? is it a good idea to use iso 9945-2 bres? if
not, which kind of regex should be used? xml schema's regex, which has
nice support for unicode?

- regexes by themselves may identify disjoint sub-resources. should
there be a mechanism to say something like "the 5th appearance of the
following regex"? or are users responsible for composing regexes which
do not need this kind of additional mechanism?

- should there be more text about url encoding? or is it safe to assume
that people know that urls must be encoded in a special way?

any comments are very welcome.


erik wilde  - tel:+41-1-6325132 - fax:+41-1-6321035
       mailto:net.dret@dret.net -  http://dret.net/
       computer engineering and networks laboratory
       swiss federal institute of technology  (eth)
       * try not. do, or do not. there is no try. *
Received on Thursday, 11 July 2002 12:29:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:04 UTC