RE: temporal URI fragments

At 16:12 03/07/06 +1000, Silvia.Pfeiffer@csiro.au wrote:

>Dear Larry, Martin, Al, all,
>
>I don't understand, Larry - why do you believe that the proposal does not 
>work with current HTTP (RFC 2616) and RTSP? We have implemented it with 
>current standard-conformant software and have not had to change anything 
>in the protocols. Could you please explain your reasoning in more detail?

HTTP clearly says to not send the fragment identifier to the server,
but you send it (in your telnet experiment). So you are NOT standard-
compliant.

There are lots of way to send the information you want to the server
(parameters, query part,...). There is no need to create a new way.
Unfortunately, I won't be in Vienna.

Regards,    Martin.



>I am currently travelling through Europe and will be attending the IETF 
>meeting in Vienna in two weeks. I am more than happy to discuss the 
>temporal URI fragment proposal in person with anybody else attending. Drop 
>me an email if you're there.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Silvia.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Larry Masinter
>To: 'Al Gilman'; 'Martin Duerst'; Silvia.Pfeiffer@csiro.au
>Cc: Silvia.Pfeiffer@csiro.au; uri@w3.org; Conrad.Parker@csiro.au
>Sent: 26.06.2003 02:10
>Subject: RE: temporal URI fragments
>
>I think I now understand that most of this proposal is
>dependent on updating HTTP (RFC 2396) and RTSP (RFC 2326)
>to allow fragment identifiers in the request URI.
>
>I can see that they've managed to produce a demonstration
>where doing so "works" with a HTTP server, but I don't
>think it's a good idea.
>
>No matter what the syntax of the fragment identifier.
>
>Larry

Received on Monday, 7 July 2003 11:05:45 UTC