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

Re: #foo URI references

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:08:07 +0200
Cc: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, uri@w3.org
To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>
Message-Id: <8C613B3A-B2D7-11D7-BE2F-000393753936@apache.org>

> 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.

We have a choice: either 1) the fragment is part of the URI and there
is one process for handling it, or 2) the fragment is an auxiliary
instruction to the user agent that is removed prior to URI processing.
I can work with one or the other, but not both depending on context.
The parsing libraries need to know what answer to provide.

In this case, I find Paul's use case to be less compelling than the
desire by RDF to only deal with things in terms of URIs.  His example
application is already modifying the document to insert the base URI;
it can modify the internal references as well and not suffer from the
problem described.  Partial archiving is not a use-case that needs
to be optimized.

....Roy
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 09:57:32 UTC

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