W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > July 2003

Re: #foo URI references

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:51:40 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20030709173334.00a8a1f0@localhost>
To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, uri@w3.org

At 16:36 03/07/09 -0400, Norman Walsh wrote:

>/ Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org> was heard to say:

>| 'varies with use' does not automatically imply we need more syntax.
>| The two uses we know are HTML-like, where it clearly is a same-document
>| reference, and RDF-like, where it is treated as being relative to the
>| relevant base. These uses should be distinguishable by context.
>
>How do you mean?
>
>   <blort href="#foo"/>
>
>Which context is that?

The context given by the operation where this #foo is used.
I.e. if somebody is clicking on it, or doing something similar,
then there is no document reload, it's just a same-document
reference.

If some system is using the #foo for doing deductions,...,
(sorry that I don't have an easy word such as 'click' available
here) then the deductions are done on the absolute URI that
results from combining the base and the #foo.

In other words, you can *think* about it in absolute terms,
but you don't do immediate reload.

This is actually not that far away from current ideal
browser behavior. Some browsers have pop-up menus saying
'bookmark this link'. They of course bookmark the absolute
location, not just #foo. When you click on the bookmark, you
get to that absolute location. Later on, the bookmark cannot
do a same-document reference, it then actually has to go and
fetch the document.

I'm still not sure this is air-tight, and not sure I'm
explaining it very well, and I'm sure that this is not
good enough to serve as text in the spec, but my gut
feeling tells me that there is not too much of an
actual conflict.

Regards,     Martin.


>This really does look like a serious problem. Some people want #foo to
>be the same as it was in 2396 and some people probably describe that
>as a bug in 2396. :-)
>
>On the whole, given the significance of the change, I think it would
>be better to stick with the status quo.
>
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
>
>- --
>Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM    | A man is not necessarily intelligent because
>XML Standards Architect | he has plenty of ideas, any more than he is a
>Web Tech. and Standards | good general because he has plenty of
>Sun Microsystems, Inc.  | soldiers.--Chamfort
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
>Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
>
>iD8DBQE/DHy7OyltUcwYWjsRAps5AKCXQ/DdykwVEdxBNoIa+28uv+o0rwCfRwyg
>LFqDZGAj/aNCP6tge0jxYZo=
>=4ytg
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 00:55:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:06 UTC