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

Re: draft-wilde-text-fragment-01 (was: Including 'fragment identifier semantics' ...)

From: Erik Wilde <net.dret@dret.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 11:03:49 +0200
Message-ID: <3D902A75.2080703@dret.net>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: ietf-types@iana.org, uri@w3.org

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> my .02 -
>>so, apart from the minor fixes, does anybody have an opinion about the
>>prantheses vs. equals syntax issue?
> Equals syntax is more URI-ish; it's easier to write a parser for
> correctly, and it's more likely that current code can be reused.

well, writing parsers for both syntaxes is not too hard. so it is more a 
question of policy (good old syntax or fashionable new schemes) and 
personal taste.

>>i also thought about adding a
>>checksum facility (md5 or something along these lines), so that fragment
>>identifiers could recognize a particular version of a resource. any
>>opinions about this feature (it would be optional, so that applications
>>would be allowed to ignore the checksum)?
> The fragment identifier doesn't seem like a good place to put this
> functionality, IMHO. If people want to version their docs, they should
> have different URIs for them.

i would object to that. one of the most important use cases for fragment 
identifiers is creating them for documents over which i do not have 
control, so i cannot mandate a way of how versioning of the resource 
should be done. but maybe i still would like to have some robustness 
built into my fragment identifiers, and a checksum would be ideal for that.

cheers,

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 Tuesday, 24 September 2002 05:05:21 UTC

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